RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a scoping review of the literature to describe current conceptualization and measurement of socioeconomic status in pediatric health research. STUDY DESIGN: Four databases were used to identify relevant studies, followed by selection and data extraction. Inclusion criteria for studies were the following: enrolled subjects <18 years old, included a health-related outcome, published from 1999 to 2018, and explicitly measured socioeconomic status (SES). RESULTS: Our literature search identified 1768 publications and 1627 unique records. After screening for duplication and relevance, 228 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria, with 75% (n = 170) published since 2009. There were 52 unique singular measures and an additional 20 composite measures. Income-related measures were used in 65% of studies (n = 147) and measures of education in 42% (n = 95). The majority of studies using census-derived variables or insurance status were conducted within the previous 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric studies use a variety of SES measures, which limits comparisons between studies. Few studies provide an evidenced-based rationale that connects the SES indicator to the health outcome, but the majority of studies do find a significant impact of SES on outcomes. SES should be comprehensively studied so that meaningful measures can be used to identify specific SES mechanisms that impact child health.
Assuntos
Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde/organização & administração , Pediatria/organização & administração , Classe Social , Adolescente , Criança , Bases de Dados Factuais , Feminino , Nível de Saúde , Disparidades nos Níveis de Saúde , Disparidades em Assistência à Saúde , Humanos , Renda , Masculino , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Pais , Projetos de Pesquisa , Fatores SocioeconômicosRESUMO
Relatively little research has addressed whether conceptual frameworks of early learning generalize across different national contexts. This article reports on a cross-country measurement invariance analysis of the International Development and Early Learning Assessment (IDELA). The IDELA is a direct assessment tool for 3- to 6-year-old children, intended to measure Early Literacy, Early Numeracy, Motor, and Social-Emotional development. Its generalizability is evaluated using samples from 5 countries: Afghanistan (N = 2,629); Bolivia (N = 480); Ethiopia (N = 682); Uganda (N = 504); and Vietnam (N = 675). The 4-domain model of the IDELA was supported in each country, although the domains were highly correlated. Measurement invariance analysis revealed that most IDELA items do not provide a basis for comparing children's development over the 5 countries. This research supports the use of the IDELA for program evaluation and within-country monitoring purposes, but cautions against its use for international comparisons. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
Assuntos
Desenvolvimento Infantil/fisiologia , Comparação Transcultural , Aprendizagem/fisiologia , Testes Neuropsicológicos/normas , Afeganistão , Bolívia , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Etiópia , Feminino , Humanos , Testes de Linguagem/normas , Masculino , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Uganda , VietnãRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Economic inequality is a growing concern in the United States and globally. The current study uses qualitative techniques to (a) explore the attributions low-income racial/ethnic minority and immigrant women make for poverty and wealth in the U.S., and (b) clarify important links between attributions, critical consciousness development, and system justification theory. METHODS: In-depth interview transcripts from 19 low-income immigrant Dominican and Mexican and native African American mothers in a large Northeastern city were analyzed using open coding techniques. Interview topics included perceptions of current economic inequality and mobility and experiences of daily economic hardships. RESULTS: Almost all respondents attributed economic inequality to individual factors (character flaws, lack of hard work). Structural explanations for poverty and wealth were expressed by fewer than half the sample and almost always paired with individual explanations. Moreover, individual attributions included system-justifying beliefs such as the belief in meritocracy and equality of opportunity and structural attributions represented varying levels of critical consciousness. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis sheds new light on how and why individuals simultaneously hold individual and structural attributions and highlights key links between system justification and critical consciousness. It shows that critical consciousness and system justification do not represent opposite stances along a single underlying continuum, but are distinct belief systems and motivations. It also suggests that the motive to justify the system is a key psychological process impeding the development of critical consciousness. Implications for scholarship and intervention are discussed.