Abstract
Abstract
Aim
Despite consensus that prevention and health promotion need to address gender aspects and differences, not much is known about how boys and girls in infancy (or their parents) make use of existing non-medical community programmes. The aim of the study was therefore to analyse the extent to which boys and girls or their parents in distinct social circumstances participate in respective programmes.
Subject and methods
We conducted secondary analyses for two study samples: The COLIPRE Study includes (n = 6.480) pre-schoolers from Duesseldorf; the SKILLS Study includes (n = 637) pre-schoolers and school children from Cologne. Social circumstances included parental education, employment status, family status, migration background, mother language and neighbourhood deprivation. Prevention participation included programmes for a healthy diet, physical activity, child education and language development. We used Poisson regressions to calculate prevalence ratios (PR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), adjusted for age, siblings and BMI, stratified for boys and girls.
Results
In both studies, we observed no gender differences in general participation. Taking a range of social circumstances into account, we found that boys and girls with specific disadvantages were underrepresented in programmes to promote a healthy diet, physical activity and child education. By contrast, boys and girls with a migration background participate in language promotion programmes more often than their German-native peers.
Conclusion
More effort should be put into developing programmes for boys and girls and their parents in difficult social circumstances.
Funder
Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf. Anstalt öffentlichen Rechts
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference43 articles.
1. Allegrante JP, Barry MM, Auld ME, Lamarre M-C (2012) Galway revisited: tracking global progress in core competencies and quality assurance for health education and health promotion. Health Edu Behav 39(6):643–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198112465089
2. Barbu S, Nardy A, Chevrot J-P, Guellaï B, Glas L, Juhel J, Lemasson A (2015) Sex differences in language across early childhood: family socioeconomic status does not impact boys and girls equally. Front Psychol 6:1874. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01874
3. Brophy S, Cooksey R, Lyons RA, Thomas NE, Rodgers SE, Gravenor MB (2011) Parental factors associated with walking to school and participation in organised activities at age 5: analysis of the millennium cohort study. BMC Public Health 11:14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-14
4. Brümmer F, Fittkau J, Koenemund I, Riviere M, Sauerland S, Weiger W (2018) Evaluation des Modellprojekts „Kommunale Präventionsketten“ (ehemals „kein Kind zurücklassen“): Abschlussbericht
5. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend (2021) Sprachkitas - Frühe Chancen. https://sprach-kitas.fruehe-chancen.de/programm/ueber-das-programm/. Accessed 27 Sept 2021
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献