Translating research into practice: a cross-sectional study using the Early Development Instrument to assess early years interventions in local level public health practice

Geddes, Rosemary; Woolfson, Lisa; McNicol, Stephanie; Booth, Josephine N.; Wray, S R; Hardie, Samantha; Doi, Larry; Frank, John

doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(14)62159-0

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Boys, immigrants, children who do not speaking the language of the majority at home and those living in the most deprived areas were all at greater risk of being developmentally vulnerable (see Table 5). These results are not surprising, as the vast majority of studies using the EDI have shown these risk trends [44,45,47,78,79,80]. However, language and area-level deprivation subgroup results showing fewer disparities in MTL compared to MEL concerning DV1 and DV2 were not anticipated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

Does Place Matter? An International Comparison of Early Childhood Development Outcomes between the Metropolitan Areas of Melbourne, Australia and Montreal, Canada

Dea

Gauvin

Fournier

et al. 2019

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is strong consensus about the importance of early childhood development (ECD) for improving population health and closing the health inequity gap. Environmental features and public policies across sectors and jurisdictions are known to influence ECD. International comparisons provide valuable opportunities to better understand the impact of these ecological determinants on ECD. This study compared ECD outcomes between metropolitan Melbourne (Australia) and Montreal (Canada), and contrasted disparities across demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Methods: Population wide surveys using the Early Development Instrument (EDI) were conducted among 4–6 years-old children in both Montreal and Melbourne in 2012, measuring five domains of ECD: 1-Physical Health/Well-Being (PHYS); 2-Social Competence (SOC); 3-Emotional Maturity (EMOT); 4-Language/Cognitive Development (COGN); and 5-Communication Skills/General Knowledge (COMM). Descriptive analyses of summary EDI indicators and domain indicators (including median scores and interquartile ranges) were compared between metropolitan areas, using their respective 95% confident intervals (CIs). Analyses were performed using Stata software (v14). Results: The proportion of children developmentally vulnerable in at least one domain of ECD was 26.8% (95% CIs: 26.2, 27.3) in Montreal vs. 19.2% (95% CIs: 18.8, 19.5) in Melbourne. The Melbourne advantage was greatest for EMOT and COGN (11.5% vs. 6.9%; 13.0% vs. 5.8%). In both Montreal and Melbourne, boys, immigrants, children not speaking the language of the majority at home, and those living in the most deprived areas were at greater risk of being developmentally vulnerable. Relative risks as a function of home language and area-level deprivation subgroups were smaller in Montreal than in Melbourne. Conclusion: This study shows that Melbourne’s children globally experience better ECD outcomes than Montreal’s children, but that inequity gaps are greater in Melbourne for language and area-level deprivation subgroups. Further research is warranted to identify the environmental factors, policies, and programs that account for these observed differences.

show abstract