Improving lifetime trajectories for vulnerable young children and families living with significant stress and social disadvantage: the early years education program randomised controlled trial

BMC Public Health

Jeff Borland⁴  Anne Kennedy⁵  Nichola Coombs¹  Yi-Ping Tseng²  Brigid Jordan³ 

[1] Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia;Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia;Clinical Sciences Theme, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Flemington Road, Parkville, 3052 Melbourne, Australia;Department of Economics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia;Community Childcare Association Victoria, Preston South, 3072 Victoria, Australia

关键词: Vulnerable children;    Child abuse and neglect;    Early years education;    Toxic stress;    Randomised controlled trial;   

Others  :  1126892
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-965

 received in 2014-08-27, accepted in 2014-09-08,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Children who experience neglect and abuse are likely to have impaired brain development and entrenched learning deficiencies. Early years interventions such as intensive education and care for these children are known to have the potential to increase their human capital. The Early Years Education Program (EYEP) is a new program offered by the Children’s Protection Society (CPS) in Melbourne, Australia. EYEP is targeted at the needs of children who have been or are at risk of being abused or neglected. It has the dual focus of seeking to address the consequences of abuse and neglect on children’s brain development and redressing their learning deficiencies. Our objective is to determine whether EYEP can improve school readiness by conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of its impacts.

Methods/Design

The RCT is being conducted with 90 participants (45 intervention and 45 control). Eligible children must be aged under three years and assessed as having two or more risk factors as defined in the Department of Human Services Best Interest Case Practice Model. The intervention group participate for three years (or until school entry) in EYEP. The trial does not provide any early years education or care to the control group. Data are being collected on outcome measures for participants in EYEP and the control group at the baseline, at yearly intervals for three years, and six months after commencing the first year of school. Outcome measures encompass children’s health and development, academic ability and emotional and behavioural regulation; and quality of parenting practices. The study will evaluate the impact of EYEP on these outcomes, and undertake a benefit-cost analysis of the program.

Discussion

Findings from the study have the potential to influence the quality of care and education for the large population of children in Australia who are at risk of abuse and neglect, as well as for children in mainstream childcare. The study will provide up-to-date evidence on the impact of an early years intervention relevant to an urban population in Australia; as well as (to our knowledge) being the first RCT of an early years education and care intervention in Australia.

Trial registration

ACTRN 12611000768998. Date 22^nd July 2011.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Jordan et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Siegel D: Toward an interpersonal neurobiology of the developing mind: attachment relationships, mindsight and neural integration. Infant Mental Health J 2001, 22(1–2):67-94.
• [2]Gerhardt S: Why Love Matters: How Affection Shapes a Baby’s Brain. London: Brunner-Routledge; 2004.
• [3]Stevenson O: Neglected Children and Their Families. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2007.
• [4]Shonkoff JP: Building a new biodevelopmental framework to guide the future of early childhood policy. Child Dev 2010, 81(1):357-367.
• [5]Ranson KE, Urichuk LJ: The effect of parent–child attachment relationships on child biopyschosocial outcomes: A review. Early Child Dev Care 2008, 178(2):129-152.
• [6]Reis HT, Collins WA, Berscheid E: The relationship context of human behaviour and development. Psychol Bull 2000, 126(6):844-872.
• [7]Perry B: Childhood Experience and the Expression of Genetic Potential: What Childhood Neglect Tells Us About Nature and Nurture. Brain Mind 2002, 3:79-100.
• [8]Shonkoff JP: Leveraging the biology of adversity to address the roots of disparities in health and development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2012, 109(Supplement 2):17302-17307.
• [9]Teicher MH: Scars that won’t heal: the neurobiology of child abuse. Sci Am 2002, 286(3):68-75.
• [10]Miller R: Cumulative Harm: A Conceptual Overview. Victorian Government Department of Human Resources: Melbourne; 2007.
• [11]McCrory E, DeBrito SA, Viding E: Research review: the neurobiology and genetics of maltreatment and adversity. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2010, 51(10):1079-1095.
• [12]Chu AT, Lieberman AF: Clinical implications of traumatic stress from birth to age five. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2010, 6:469-494.
• [13]Raver CC, Jones SM, Li-Grining C, Zhai F, Bub K, Pressler E: CSRP’s impact on low-income pre-schoolers preacademic skills: Self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Dev 2011, 82:362-378.
• [14]Heckman J: Schools, skills and synapses. Econ Inq 2008, 46(3):289-324.
• [15]Cunha F, Heckman JJ, Schennach S: Estimating the technology of cognitive and noncognitive skill formation. Econometrica 2010, 78(3):883-931.
• [16]Carrell SE, Hoekstra ML: Externalities in the classroom: How children exposed to domestic violence affect everyone’s kids. Am Econ J: Appl Econ 2010, 2(1):211-228.
• [17]Rothman EF, Edwards EM, Heeren T, Hingson RW: Adverse childhood experiences predict earlier age of drinking onset: Results from a representative US sample of current or former drinkers. Pediatrics 2008, 122:e298-e304.
• [18]Bierhaus A, Wolf J, Andrassy M, Rohleder N, Humpert PM, Petrov D, Ferstl R, von Eynatten M, Wendt T, Rudofsky G, Joswig M, Morcos M, Schwaninger M, McEwen B, Kirschbaum C, Nawroth PP: A mechanism converting psychosocial stress into mono-nuclear cell activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003, 100:1920-1925.
• [19]Nicholson JM, Lucas N, Berthelsen D, Wake M: Socioeconomic inequality profiles in physical and developmental health from 0–7 years: Australian national study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2010, 66(1):81-87.
• [20]Karoly L, Kilburn MR, Cannon JS: Early Childhood Interventions. Santa Monica, California: Rand; 2005.
• [21]Duncan GJ, Mugnuson K: Investing in preschool programs. J Econ Perspect 2013, 27(2):109-132.
• [22]Almond D, Currie J: Human capital development before age 5. In Handbook of Labor Economics Volume 4bEdited by Ashenfelter O, Card D. Amsterdam: North Holland; 2011:1315-1487.
• [23]Magnuson KA, Ruhm C, Waldfogel J: Does pre-kindergarten improve school preparation and performance? Econ Educ Rev 2007, 26(1):33-51.
• [24]Sammons P: Does pre-school make a difference? Results over the pre-school period (to age 5). In Early Childhood Matters: Evidence from the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education Project. Edited by Sylva K, Melhuish E, Sammons P, Siraj-Blatchford I, Taggart B. London: Routledge; 2010:92-113.
• [25]Nores M, Barnett WS: Benefits of early childhood interventions across the world: (Under) investing in the very young. Econ Educ Rev 2010, 29:271-282.
• [26]Camilli G, Vargas S, Ryan S, Barnett S: Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teach Coll Rec 2010, 112(3):579-620.
• [27]Heckman JJ, Moon SH, Pinto R, Savelyev PA, Yavitz A: The rate of return to the HighScope Perry preschool program. J Public Econ 2010, 94(1–2):114-128.
• [28]Tapper A, Phillimore J: Prevention-based approaches to social policy: The case of early childhood development. Evidence Basehttp://journal.anzsog.edu.au/publications/2/2012Issue2Final.pdf webcite
• [29]Gwynne K, Blick BA, Duffy GM: Pilot evaluation of an early intervention programme for children at risk. J Paediatr Child Health 2009, 45:118-124.
• [30]Shonkoff JP: Protecting brains, not simply stimulating minds. Science 2011, 333:982-983.
• [31]Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations DEEWR: Belonging, Being and Becoming. The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia; 2009.
• [32]Turnbull A, Turbville V, Turnbull HR: Evolution of family-professional relationships: Collective empowerment for the early 21st century. In Handbook of Early Childhood Interventions. 2nd edition. Edited by Shonkoff JP, Meisels SJ. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press; 2000:630-650.
• [33]O’Donnell M, Scott D, Stanley F: Child abuse and neglect – Is it time for a public health approach? Aust N Z J Public Health 2008, 32(4):325-330.
• [34]Victorian Department of Human Services: Child Development and Trauma Guide. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria; 2007.
• [35]Ramey CT, Yeates KO, Short EJ: The plasticity of intellectual development: Insights from preventative intervention. Child Dev 2010, 55(5):1913-1925.
• [36]Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Child Protection Australia. 2012-2013. http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=60129547965 webcite
• [37]Price-Robertson R, Bromfield L, Vassallo S: The Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect. Australian Institute of Family Studies: Melbourne; 2010.
• [38]Report of Victorian Auditor-General: Early Childhood Development Services: Access and Quality. http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/2010-11/20110525-Early-Childhood.pdf webcite