Search

There is growing public urgency to close equity gaps in health and development by addressing inequities at multiple levels of childrens developmental ecosystems. Current measurement strategies obscure the dynamic structural and relational patterns of oppression, adversity, and disadvantage that children can experience in their local intimate developmental ecosystem, as well as the leverage points that are necessary to change them. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between a universally available measure of neighborhood socio-economic context, the National Neighborhood Equity Index (NNEI), and a population measure of early child development and well-being, the Early Development Instrument (EDI). Data from a convenience sample of 144,957 kindergarteners in neighborhoods across the US demonstrate that children living in neighborhoods with more equity barriers are more likely to be on vulnerable developmental trajectories than those who reside in neighborhoods without any equity barriers. A multi-dimensional measurement approach that incorporates both the EDI and the NNEI can be used to quantify ethnoracialized patterns of structural disadvantage during critical periods of health development. These measures can inform community action to intervene early in the lifecourse to optimize childrens health development trajectories at a population level.

Children born prematurely (

BACKGROUND: Early childhood health development is positively associated with income, but the strength of this relationship with ethnoracial background remains unclear. This study examined the extent of health development inequities among California kindergarteners based on ethnoracial backgrounds and neighborhood-level income. METHODS: This cross-sectional study assessed health development inequities by analyzing neighborhood-level income, ethnoracial background, and health development data for California kindergarteners. Student-level data (n = 106,574) were collected through teacher report between 2010-2020 across 52 school districts and 964 schools. Student addresses were geocoded and linked to American Community Survey neighborhood income levels. Health development was measured using the Early Development Instrument, a population-level measure which includes physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, and communication skills and general knowledge domains. Outcomes included being on-track in each domain as well as overall health development. RESULTS: Using a Generalized Estimation Equation with a log-link function, while accounting for interactions between ethnoracial background, income, and income-squared, we found significant health development inequities by ethnoracial background and neighborhood-level income. Regarding overall health development, as well as the physical, social and emotional domains, Black students had a lower likelihood of being on-track compared to the weighted average across income levels, whereas Asian students surpassed the weighted average. White students exhibited the steepest slope, and at the lowest income levels, their health development scores were akin to their Black and Hispanic/Latino/a low-income counterparts but resembled their Asian counterparts at higher income levels. For the general knowledge and communication domain, white students consistently had the highest likelihood of being on-track, while Hispanic/Latino/a students had the lowest likelihood across all income levels. CONCLUSION: This study examines health development inequities among California kindergarteners in diverse communities. Our analysis shows that the relationship between neighborhood-level income and kindergartners health development varies by domain and is weaker for students of color. Given the scarcity of population-level data on health development outcomes, these analyses offer valuable insights for identifying ecosystems necessitating support in promoting equitable early childhood health development.

CONTEXT: In recent years, stakeholders in public health have emphasized measuring young peoples well-being as a more holistic and upstream approach to understanding their health and development. However, summarizing the available indicators of well-being in ways that strengthen ongoing policy and community efforts remains a challenge. PROGRAM: Our objective was to develop a measurement framework of young peoples well-being that would be engaging and actionable to a broad and diverse set of stakeholders in California. IMPLEMENTATION: We began with a scan of the relevant literature documenting previous efforts to measure young peoples well-being, both within the United States and internationally. Subsequently, we individually interviewed a set of key informants and then convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to solicit feedback on our approach. Throughout this iterative and collaborative process, we developed and refined a measurement framework based on the information provided across these various sources. EVALUATION: Findings suggest data dashboards are a promising approach for presenting a parsimonious yet holistic picture of young peoples well-being. Dashboards can highlight well-beings multidimensionality by categorizing indicators over different domains. Our framework organizes indicators over 5 types: child-centric, subjective well-being, contextual determinants, developmental, and equity-focused. The design and flexibility of dashboards can also highlight important gaps in data collection that are of interest to end users such as indicators not yet collected among the broader population. Furthermore, dashboards can include interactive features, such as selecting key data elements, that can help communities articulate priority areas for policy action, thereby generating momentum and enthusiasm for future iterations and improvements. DISCUSSION: Data dashboards are well suited for engaging a variety of stakeholders on complex multidimensional concepts such as young peoples well-being. However, to fulfill their promise, they should be codesigned and codeveloped through an iterative process with the stakeholders and community members they intend to serve.

Policy Points Social indicators of young peoples' conditions and circumstances, such as high school graduation, food insecurity, and smoking, are improving even as subjective indicators of mental health and well-being have been worsening. This divergence suggests policies targeting the social indicators may not have improved overall mental health and well-being. There are several plausible reasons for this seeming contradiction. Available data suggest the culpability of one or several common exposures poorly captured by existing social indicators. Resolving this disconnect requires significant investments in population-level data systems to support a more holistic, child-centric, and up-to-date understanding of young people's lives.

ImportanceThe US faces a pivotal moment of opportunity and risk regarding issues affecting children (aged 0-17 years). Although the US remains the only United Nations member state to not have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a child rights framework is essential for child health professionals seeking to advance many issues affecting children in the US. The Reimagining Children's Rights project (2020-2021) conducted an in-depth environmental scan of relevant literature and policy analysis using the Three Horizons design process to assess strategies that could advance the rights and well-being of children in the US. The project was overseen by a steering committee and informed by an advisory committee composed of youth leaders and experts in children's rights, advocacy, health, law, and a range of child-specific issues (eg, youth justice, early childhood development), who provided expert input on strategic considerations for advancing children's rights.ObservationsSeven findings about advancing children's rights in the US are notable, all reflecting current gaps and opportunities for using a whole-child rights framework in the US, even without formal adoption of the CRC. Actionable strategies, tactics, and tools to leverage sustainable change in the multitude of issue areas can advance the current state of children's rights. High-potential strategies for catalyzing advancement of children's rights include youth activism, innovations in governance and accountability, legislative action, impact litigation, place-based initiatives, education and public awareness, alignment with other children's movements, and research. The child rights framework is unifying and adaptive to future unforeseen challenges.Conclusions and relevanceChildren's rights provide a powerful, synergistic framework for child health professionals-in partnership with youth and other leaders-to increase equity and protect the rights and well-being of all children in the US.

The well-being of children and adolescents is emerging as an area of interest for population health measurement. Previous approaches assessing national and state trends in well-being have relied on composite indices. However, these methodologies suffer from several weaknesses. This paper develops an improved index for the United States that is measurable with existing population-data resources. It derives the appropriate weights for items in this index using a longitudinal panel of 2,942 children in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Candidate component measures are selected for the index based on their demonstrated association with several subjective scales assessed during young adulthood. The final index demonstrates that a broad range of measures indicate higher levels of population-level well-being. The predictive validity of the index for outcomes during young adulthood is also assessed: a one-standard-deviation increase in the index score is associated with a 7.9-percentage-point decrease [95% CI: 5.9 - 9.8] in ever reporting fair or poor health, a 6.3-percentage-point decrease [95% CI: 4.6 - 8.0] in ever reporting depression, and a 17.2% [95% CI: 13.7% - 20.5%] increase in peak earnings. These values for predictive validity are slightly higher than those of existing methodologies. We also find that incorporating contextual indicators from childhood and adolescence does not substantively improve predictive validity. Policy-makers and government agencies interested in population-level well-being of children and adolescents can continue to use existing indices as reasonable proxies, but should also commit to upgrading data systems to make them more child-centric in the future.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12187-022-09962-0.

ImportanceImproving child and adolescent well-being is a critical public health goal, yet monitoring of this measure at the national level remains limited. Composite indices aggregate existing indicators from population data sources, but these indices currently have weaknesses that may inhibit widespread use.ObjectiveTo apply a novel, more child-centric index method to document changes in overall child and adolescent well-being in the US from 2000 to 2019, assess which states and racial and ethnic subpopulations experienced the greatest inequities in well-being, and identify the specific components associated with changes in the index over time.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study applied the Child and Adolescent Thriving Index 1.0 to population-level data from 2000 to 2019 from several data sources. The area-based sampling frame for each of the component data sources allowed for nationally representative estimates for every year of the study period. The indices for every state and by race and ethnicity were also calculated. Due to the scope and breadth of the index components from across the life course, the Child and Adolescent Thriving Index 1.0 is intended to approximate the well-being of persons up to age 17 years. Data were analyzed from June 7, 2021, to March 17, 2022.ExposuresTime in years.Main outcomes and measuresThe Child and Adolescent Thriving Index 1.0 is a weighted mean of 11 indicators intended to proxy well-being. The index comprises 11 components: non-low birth weight in neonates, preschool attendance in children aged 3 to 4 years, reading proficiency in fourth-grade students, math proficiency in eighth-grade students, food security in children younger than 18 years, general health status, nonobesity in high school students, nonsmoking in adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, non-marijuana use in adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, high school graduation in young adults aged 18 to 21 years, and nonarrest rate in children aged 10 to 17 years. The index ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating minimum and 1 indicating maximum possible well-being at the population level.ResultsThe Child and Adolescent Thriving Index 1.0 was applied to data from 12 320 national, state, and racial and ethnic population-level estimates. Over the study period, the Child and Adolescent Thriving Index 1.0 score increased from 0.780 points in 2000 to 0.843 points in 2019. Despite some convergence in geographic and racial and ethnic disparities, inequities were still present in 2019 in the South (-0.021 points) compared with the Northeast and among American Indian or Alaska Native (-0.079 points), Black (-0.053 points), and Latinx (-0.047 points) children and adolescents compared with White youths. Index components most associated with the overall increases in index scores of well-being were high school graduation rate (+0.028 units) and nonsmoking in adolescents (+0.022 units), amounting to 80.6% of the total increase.Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study suggest that child and adolescent well-being scores increased from 2000 to 2019, but substantial work remains to address persistent inequities across states and racial and ethnic populations. The newly developed Child and Adolescent Thriving Index 1.0 may be used in future work to evaluate which public policy types (economic, social, health care, housing, or education) are associated with higher levels of well-being.

Health care reaches more children under age three in the United States than any other family-facing system and represents the most common entry point for developmental assessment of and services for children. In this article, Adam Schickedanz and Neal Halfon examine how well the child health care system promotes healthy child development early in life. They also review children's access to health care through insurance coverage, the health care system's evolution in response to scientific and technical advances, and the shifting epidemiology of health and developmental risk. The authors find that the health care system is significantly underperforming because it is constrained by antiquated conventions, insufficient resources, and outmoded incentive structures inherent in the traditional medical model that still dominates pediatric care. These structural barriers, organization challenges, and financial constraints limit the system's ability to adequately recognize, respond to, and, most importantly, prevent adverse developmental outcomes at the population level. To achieve population-level progress in healthy child development, Schickedanz and Halfon argue that pediatric care will need to transform itself and go beyond simply instituting incremental clinical process improvement. This will require taking advantage of opportunities to deliver coordinated services that bridge sectors and focusing not only on reducing developmental risk and responding to established developmental disability but also on optimizing healthy child development before developmental vulnerabilities arise. New imperatives for improved population health, along with the growing recognition among policy makers and practitioners of the social and developmental determinants of health, have driven recent innovations in care models, service coordination, and coverage designs. Yet the available resources and infrastructure are static or shrinking, crowded out by rising overall health care costs and other policy priorities. The authors conclude that child health systems are at a crossroads of conflicting priorities and incentives, and they explore how the health system might successfully respond to this impasse.

Advances in life course health science, systems biology, and epigenetics suggest that health development can be represented as a trajectory affected by multiple risk and protective factors arrayed in a relational developmental ecosystem across child, family, community, and systems levels. Despite tremendous potential for early life interventions at multiple levels of this ecosystem to improve childrens life course health trajectories, this potential has not been fully explored. In fact, Life Course Health Development is a low priority for both health care and research funding. Representing the work of the Life Course Intervention Research Network, this supplement to Pediatrics reports on the first steps taken to define the emerging discipline of life course intervention research. Articles cover the characteristics of life course interventions together with a research framework and core competencies for this work. Topics include family, community, and youth engagement as vital components of grounding this work in health equity, family health development and its measurement, supporting children after prematurity, and new approaches to early childhood mental health. Schools and telehealth are considered innovative platforms for life course interventions, whereas cross-sector partnerships are recognized as key components of interventions to address childhood adversity. Researchers apply a Life Course Health Development lens to juvenile justice issues, including the minimum age law, and consider potential trade-offs whereby striving (education and income mobility) can limit thriving (health mobility) for people of color and those raised in low-income families. Finally, we present the Australian experience of embedding life course interventions in longitudinal studies.

OBJECTIVES: To report on first steps toward building a Life Course Intervention Research Framework (LCIRF) to guide researchers studying interventions to improve lifelong health. METHODS: The Life Course Intervention Research Network, a collaborative national network of >75 researchers, service providers, community representatives and thought leaders, participated in an iterative review process. Building on the revised Medical Research Council Guidance for Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions, they identified 12 additional key models with features for inclusion in the LCIRF, then incorporated the 12 characteristics identified by the Life Course Intervention Research Network as actionable features of Life Course Interventions to produce the new LCIRF. RESULTS: The LCIRF sets out a detailed step-wise approach to intervention development: (1) conceptualization and planning, (2) design, (3) implementation, (4) evaluation, and (5) spreading and scaling of interventions. Each step is infused with life course intervention characteristics including a focus on (1) collaborative codesign (2) health optimization, (3) supporting emerging health development capabilities (4) strategic timing, (5) multilevel approaches, and (6) health equity. Key features include a detailed transdisciplinary knowledge synthesis to inform intervention development; formation of strong partnerships with family, community, and youth representatives in intervention codesign; a means of testing the impact of each intervention on biobehavioral processes underlying emerging health trajectories; and close attention to intervention context. CONCLUSIONS: This first iteration of the LCIRF has been largely expert driven. Next steps will involve widespread partner engagement in framework refinement and further development. Implementation will require changes to the way intervention studies are organized and funded.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an initial list of characteristics of life course interventions to inform the emerging discipline of life course intervention research. METHODS: The Life Course Intervention Research Network, a collaborative national network of >75 researchers, service providers, community representatives, and thought leaders, considered the principles, characteristics, and utility of life course interventions. After an in-person launch meeting in 2019, the steering committee collaboratively and iteratively developed a list of life course intervention characteristics, incorporating a modified Delphi review process. RESULTS: The Life Course Intervention Research Network identified 12 characteristics of life course interventions. These interventions (1) are aimed at optimizing health trajectories; (2) are developmentally focused, (3) longitudinally focused, and (4) strategically timed; and are (5) designed to address multiple levels of the ecosystem where children are born, live, learn, and grow and (6) vertically, horizontally, and longitudinally integrated to produce a seamless, forward-leaning, health optimizing system. Interventions are designed to (7) support emerging health development capabilities; are (8) collaboratively codesigned by transdisciplinary research teams, including stakeholders; and incorporate (9) family-centered, (10) strengths-based, and (11) antiracist approaches with (12) a focus on health equity. CONCLUSIONS: The intention for this list of characteristics of life course interventions is to provide a starting point for wider discussion and to guide research development. Incorporation of these characteristics into intervention designs may improve emerging health trajectories and move critical developmental processes and pathways back on track, even optimizing them to prevent or reduce adverse outcomes.

Childhood adversity and its structural causes drive lifelong and intergenerational inequities in health and well-being. Health care systems increasingly understand the influence of childhood adversity on health outcomes but cannot treat these deep and complex issues alone. Cross-sector partnerships, which integrate health care, food support, legal, housing, and financial services among others, are becoming increasingly recognized as effective approaches address health inequities. What principles should guide the design of cross-sector partnerships that address childhood adversity and promote Life Course Health Development (LCHD)? The complex effects of childhood adversity on health development are explained by LCHD concepts, which serve as the foundation for a cross-sector partnership that optimizes lifelong health. We review the evolution of cross-sector partnerships in health care to inform the development of an LCHD-informed partnership framework geared to address childhood adversity and LCHD. This framework outlines guiding principles to direct partnerships toward life course-oriented action: (1) proactive, developmental, and longitudinal investment; (2) integration and codesign of care networks; (3) collective, community and systemic impact; and (4) equity in praxis and outcomes. Additionally, the framework articulates foundational structures necessary for implementation: (1) a shared cross-sector theory of change; (2) relational structures enabling shared leadership, trust, and learning; (3) linked data and communication platforms; and (4) alternative funding models for shared savings and prospective investment. The LCHD-informed cross-sector partnership framework presented here can be a guide for the design and implementation of cross-sector partnerships that effectively address childhood adversity and advance health equity through individual-, family-, community-, and system-level intervention.

Since the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid programs serve millions more enrollees across the life course, yet beneficiaries continue to experience high rates of preventable morbidity and mortality rooted in earlier life experiences. By incorporating evidence from life course science into Medicaid, using the Life Course Health Development (LCHD) framework, states can more effectively achieve lifelong health improvement. We describe 5 elements of an LCHD-informed strategy states can use to align Medicaid redesign initiatives toward a common goal of improving life course health outcomes: targeting prevention to sensitive periods; prioritizing intervention on social exposures; maximizing longitudinal continuity in coverage and service delivery; building technological systems with capability to measure performance and outcomes over time; and selecting financial models that support LCHD-informed care. With this framework, states can strategically direct investment to improve health for vulnerable Americans, and assure their investment will pay off over time.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Established social gradients across a wide range of child health issues including obesity, anxiety, infectious diseases, injuries, prematurity and low birth weight suggest that much illness is avoidable and there is an imperative to intervene in this whole of society issue. This review examines recent advances in understanding of the pathways to health and health inequalities and their application to interventions to improve health equity. RECENT FINDINGS: Childrens health develops over the life course in ways that are profoundly influenced by their entire developmental ecosystem including individual, family, community and system-level factors. Interventions to address child health inequalities must include action on the structural determinants of health, a greater focus on family and community health development, and attention to the acquisition of developmental capabilities. Nascent dynamic population health initiatives that address whole developmental ecosystems such as All Children Thrive, Better Start Bradford and Generation V, hold real promise for achieving child health equity. SUMMARY: Pathways to health inequalities are driven by social and structural determinants of health. Interventions to address inequalities need to be driven less by older biomedical models, and more by prevailing ecological and complex systems models incorporating a life course health development approach.

PurposeUnderstanding the full impact of COVID-19 on U.S. children, families, and communities is critical to (a) document the scope of the problem, (b) identify solutions to mitigate harm, and (c) build more resilient response systems. We sought to develop a research agenda to understand the short- and long-term mechanisms and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on children's healthy development, with the goal of devising and ultimately testing interventions to respond to urgent needs and prepare for future pandemics.DescriptionThe Life Course Intervention Research Network facilitated a series of virtual meetings that included members of 10 Maternal and Child Health (MCH) research programs, their research and implementation partners, as well as family and community representatives, to develop an MCH COVID-19 Research Agenda. Stakeholders from academia, clinical practice, nonprofit organizations, and family advocates participated in four meetings, with 30-35 participants at each meeting.AssessmentInvestigating the impacts of COVID-19 on children's mental health and ways to address them emerged as the highest research priority, followed by studying resilience at individual and community levels; identifying and mitigating the disparate negative effects of the pandemic on children and families of color, prioritizing community-based research partnerships, and strengthening local, state and national measurement systems to monitor children's well-being during a national crisis.ConclusionEnacting this research agenda will require engaging the community, especially youth, as equal partners in research co-design processes; centering anti-racist perspectives; adopting a "strengths-based" approach; and integrating young researchers who identify as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC). New collaborative funding models and investments in data infrastructure are also needed.

BackgroundAdverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are stressful childhood events associated with behavioral, mental, and physical illness. Parent experiences of adversity may indicate a child's adversity risk, but little evidence exists on intergenerational links between parents' and children's ACEs. This study examines these intergenerational ACE associations, as well as parent factors that mediate them.MethodsThe Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) 2013 Main Interview and the linked PSID Childhood Retrospective Circumstances Study collected parent and child ACE information. Parent scores on the Aggravation in Parenting Scale, Parent Disagreement Scale, and the Kessler-6 Scale of Emotional Distress were linked through the PSID 1997, 2002, and 2014 PSID Childhood Development Supplements. Multivariate linear and multinomial logistic regression models estimated adjusted associations between parent and child ACE scores.ResultsAmong 2205 parent-child dyads, children of parents with four or more ACEs had 3.25-fold (23.1% [95% CI 15.9-30.4] versus 7.1% [4.4-9.8], p-value 0.001) higher risk of experiencing four or more ACEs themselves, compared to children of parents without ACEs. Parent aggravation, disagreement, and emotional distress were partial mediators.ConclusionsParents with higher ACE scores are far more likely to have children with higher ACEs. Addressing parenting stress, aggravation, and discord may interrupt intergenerational adversity cycles.

School readiness skills predict later educational achievement, health, and social-emotional outcomes. Measures of school readiness can provide valuable information to assess both the impact of strategies and policies that prepare children for school as well as informing strategies for improving children's educational trajectories across their school years. The Early Development Instrument (EDI) is a measure of school readiness skills based on teacher-reported observational recall. It has been used extensively in Canada and Australia and is in the early stages of adoption in a number of U.S. cities. The current study uses data from roughly 3,000 children followed longitudinally from kindergarten through third grade from 7 school districts in Orange County, California. The study assesses whether EDI ratings in kindergarten predict third grade proficiency in mathematics and English Language Arts on state assessments. Ratings on the EDI were strongly associated with proficiency in both academic areas, even in the presence of controls for child-level factors and neighborhood fixed effects. Among its components, ratings on the language and cognitive development, communication skills and general knowledge, and social competence domains strongly differentiated children's likelihood of later proficiency in both academic areas. Implications for improving comprehensive early childhood education and schooling policies based on indicators of school readiness are discussed.

INTRODUCTION:Adverse childhood experiences are associated with higher risk of common chronic mental and physical illnesses in adulthood, but little evidence exists on whether this influences medical costs or expenses. This study estimated increases in household medical expenses associated with adults' reported adverse childhood experience scores. METHODS:Household out-of-pocket medical cost and adverse childhood experience information was collected in the 2011 and 2013 waves of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics and its linked 2014-2015 Panel Study of Income Dynamics Childhood Retrospective Circumstances Study supplement and analyzed in 2017. Generalized linear regression models estimated adjusted annual household out-of-pocket medical cost differences by retrospective adverse childhood experience count and compared costs by family type and size. Logistic models estimated odds of out-of-pocket costs that were >10% of household income or >100% of savings, as well as odds of household debt. RESULTS:Adverse childhood experience scores were associated with higher out-of-pocket costs. Annual household total out-of-pocket medical costs were $184 (95% CI=$90, $278) or 1.18-fold higher when respondents reported one to two adverse childhood experiences and $311 (95% CI=$196, $426) or 1.30-fold higher when three or more adverse childhood experiences were reported by an adult in the household. Odds of household medical costs >10% of income, >100% of savings, and the presence of household medical debt were 2.48-fold (95% CI=1.40, 4.38), 2.25-fold (95% CI=1.69, 2.99), and 2.29-fold (95% CI=1.56, 3.34) higher when an adult in the household reported three or more adverse childhood experiences compared with none. CONCLUSIONS:Greater exposure to adverse childhood experiences is associated with higher household out-of-pocket medical costs and financial burden in adulthood.

ObjectivesTo examine relationships of residential crowding and commute time with early child development.MethodsWe used the Early Development Instrument (EDI), a teacher-reported, population-health measure of child development. The sample included child-level observations spanning 8 US states from 2010 to 2017 (n = 185 012), aggregated to the census tract (n= 2793), stratified by percentage of households in poverty. To test the association of commute times, crowding, and child development, we tested overall readiness and 5 EDI domains by using adjusted census tract-level multivariate regression with fixed effects.ResultsIn the full sample, a 1-standard-deviation increase in crowding was associated with 0.064- and 0.084-point decreases in mean score for cognitive development and communication skills, respectively. For the high-poverty subsample, a 1-standard deviation increase in commute time was associated with 0.081- and 0.066-point decreases in social competence and emotional maturity.ConclusionsIn neighborhoods with increased crowding or commute time, early child development suffers.Policy implicationsThis study suggests a potential relationship between the changing urban landscape and child health. Children would benefit from more multisector collaboration between urban planning and public health.

: media-1vid110.1542/5789654354001PEDS-VA_2018-0023Video Abstract BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) include stressful and potentially traumatic events associated with higher risk of long-term behavioral problems and chronic illnesses. Whether parents' ACE counts (an index of standard ACEs) confer intergenerational risk to their children's behavioral health is unknown. In this study, we estimate the risk of child behavioral problems as a function of parent ACE counts. We obtained retrospective information on 9 ACEs self-reported by parents and parent reports of their children's (1) behavioral problems (using the Behavior Problems Index [BPI]), (2) attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnosis, and (3) emotional disturbance diagnosis from the 2013 Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) core interview and the linked PSID Childhood Retrospective Circumstances Study and 2014 PSID Child Development Supplement. Multivariate linear and logistic regression models were used to estimate child behavioral health outcomes by parent retrospective ACE count. Children of parents with a history of 4 or more ACEs had on average a 2.3-point (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-3.2) higher score on the BPI, 2.1 times (95% CI: 1.1-3.8) higher odds of hyperactivity, and 4.2 times (95% CI: 1.7-10.8) higher odds of an emotional disturbance diagnosis than children of parents with no ACEs. Maternal ACEs revealed a stronger association with child behavior problems than paternal ACEs. Relationships between parents' 9 component ACEs individually and children's BPI scores revealed consistently positive associations. Mediation by parent emotional distress and aggravation were observed. Parents with greater exposure to ACEs are more likely to have children with behavioral health problems.

Current recommendations emphasize developmental screening and surveillance to identify developmental delays (DDs) for referral to early intervention (EI) services. Many young children without DDs, however, are at high risk for poor developmental and behavioral outcomes by school entry but are ineligible for EI. We developed models for 2-year-olds without DD that predict, at kindergarten entry, poor academic performance and high problem behaviors. Data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B), were used for this study. The analytic sample excluded children likely eligible for EI because of DDs or very low birth weight. Dependent variables included low academic scores and high problem behaviors at the kindergarten wave. Regression models were developed by using candidate predictors feasibly obtainable during typical 2-year well-child visits. Models were cross-validated internally on randomly selected subsamples. Approximately 24% of all 2-year-old children were ineligible for EI at 2 years of age but still had poor academic or behavioral outcomes at school entry. Prediction models each contain 9 variables, almost entirely parental, social, or economic. Four variables were associated with both academic and behavioral risk: parental education below bachelor's degree, little/no shared reading at home, food insecurity, and fair/poor parental health. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve were 0.76 for academic risk and 0.71 for behavioral risk. Adding the mental scale score from the Bayley Short Form-Research Edition did not improve areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for either model. Among children ineligible for EI services, a small set of clinically available variables at age 2 years predicted academic and behavioral outcomes at school entry.

The epidemiology and social context of American childhood are rapidly changing. Adverse social, economic, and child-rearing conditions are loading children down with preventable illness, physical and behavioral disability, and dysfunction. This new epidemiology of childhood is swamping the capacity of the nation's health care system, schools, juvenile justice facilities, and child protective services to respond to the needs of those they serve. This low-performing system not only jeopardizes the health of children, it also jeopardizes the health of the adults they will become. In this article we review the science of life-course health development, a new field that provides a powerful explanatory framework for understanding how poor health and social adversity during childhood can affect lifelong health. We then present five ambitious policy recommendations to integrate educational, health, social, and economic initiatives designed to enhance health. Our bold but pragmatic goal is that by 2025, US children will have the highest levels of health among industrialized nations, instead of where US children currently rank-among the worst.