Search

The use of indicators is a fast and widely spread way to monitor groups of children's health and well-being. Indicators are useful in research; but they are also important tools for planners and politicians. Although they are constructed to simplify reality, in many reports they still offer a complex and confusing picture, not least by their sheer numbers. Although they are constructed to simplify reality, in many reports, they still offer a complex and confusing picture, not least by their sheer numbers. Therefore, there is an increasing demand for even further simplifications, where the indicators are combined into single summary numbers, composite indices. At the same time, as a composite index summarizes a complex and sometimes elusive process, making it more accessible for advocacy and political interventions, the combining of very dissimilar components makes the results difficult to interpret and use. There is an obvious dilemma between the need for rigour and evidence, the research orientation, and the wish for a simple and summarizing overview of the findings, the policy orientation. Models have been created to form indicator sets, either by combining them by simple addition or by weighting them or by just leaving them as separate indicators. Most index systems in operation use an equal weighting system after standardization, once the components have been selected. Examples of these models are described as well as their pros and cons, and a summary of suitable ways of handling the problems of indicators and composite indices is offered. Some surveys have taken the best from different approaches, presenting the results as a summary index for the great picture, as subindices for the various domains of child health and as separate indicators for the detailed study of the basic components. A Swedish Child Health Index is presented as an example of such a solution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The aim of the study was to analyse the development in the health of children that occurred in the five Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden) between 1984 and 1996 and relate it to the changes in economic growth and social capital in these countries during the same period. Methods Two cross-sectional studies covered a representative sample of children, aged 2–17 years in each country, a total of 10 291 in 1984 and 10 317 in 1996. The data were collected by mailed questionnaires. Statistical associations between a health indicator (the absence of psychosomatic complaints), economic indicators (social class, housing and disposable income) and social capital indicators (parents’ and children’s organized group activities, parents playing with their children and the absence of bullying) within samples and between corresponding values in different samples across subgroups (defined by country and area of residence) were evaluated using multiple linear regression. Results In both surveys, there was a statistically highly significant association between the health indicator and the social capital indicators, whereas the economy indicators were not related to either of the other two types of measure. Change in health was associated positively with change in social capital and negatively with change in economy. Conclusion The study provides strong support for the concept of social capital as an important determinant of children’s health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Bullying has been shown to be a serious problem amongst school children, but few studies have been population-based and included pre-school children. Methods The study is part of a cross-sectional comparative study in 1984 and 1996, focusing on children's and their families’ health and welfare in the Nordic countries. At each point of time parents of 3000 randomly selected children aged 2–17 years in each of five Nordic countries received a postal questionnaire. Altogether approximately 20 000 questionnaires were completed. The prevalence of bullying, risk factors for bullying and possible effect factors were analysed. Results Parents reported bullying of their child in 15.1% of the cases. Bullying varied from 7.2% in Sweden to about 20% in Denmark and Finland. There was a small increase in bullying from 13.7% in 1984 to 16.4% in 1996. Bullying was most frequent in boys (OR: 1.4) and in children 2–6 and 7–12 years old (OR: 2.0 and 2.2 compared with older children). Children of single parents and of parents with low education had increased risks (OR: 1.4 and 1.4). Children with chronic conditions had higher risks for being bullied (OR: 2.3). In 1996 children with psychiatric/nervous problems and hyperactivity had high risks for being bullied (OR: 8.8 and 10.5) and for bullying others (3.9 and 3.5). Being bullied was associated with poor thriving and psychosomatic and psychological problems. No countries had national interventions before 1984, but Sweden had early focused on the problem and implemented a strong national policy before 1996. After 1996 national anti-bullying policies were strengthened in the Nordic countries, most in Sweden and Norway. Conclusion Bullying is common among Nordic children, including pre-school children. Bullying is a threat to children's health, and augments problems in children with chronic conditions. The low prevalence of bullying in Sweden may be a result from sustained, strong anti-bullying policies. There is still a need for continuing interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a recent project, commissioned by the European Union, a set of Child Health Indicators were identified and recommended for use in all Member States. In that work, by a group of European experts, children's development was one of the key areas that were reviewed to clarify its role in this set of indicators. This paper deals with neurological (in a broad sense), social and moral aspects of development; other aspects, such as nutrition and physical growth, mental health, quality of life were dealt with in other areas. A number of methods are used to monitor children's neurodevelopment, to identify early deviations that could be treated or alleviated. Few tests fulfil basic criteria of screening and quality of evidence. For Child Health Programmes, developmental surveillance is instead recommended. As a proxy to social development, as part of children's process of adaptation into society, education indicators are recommended, such as suggested by OECD and UNICEF. Moral development is discarded as an indicator, because norms and values vary too much between countries. For now the Child Health Indicators of Life and Development Project found no ground to recommend any particular method or combination of methods for a general monitoring of children's neurological, intellectual, language and moral development, and for including the results as national indicators of children's health and well-being in EU. For social development, indicators in the educational area seem most promising, as they have been proposed and used by OECD and UNESCO. In an ambitious monitoring programme, these indicators could be included as determinants of children's health and development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ESSOP--the European Society for Social Paediatrics--was initiated in Lund, Sweden in 1977, and at the annual congress in Spetses, Greece, its 25th anniversary was celebrated. At the congress, Professor Lennart Köhler, who started the organization and for 10 years was its first Secretary General, presented his recollections from the life of ESSOP, its people, activities, strategies and ideologies, and the main lines of development over the years. This paper presents an edited version of his speech for the benefit of the readers of Child: Care, Health and Development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]