Search

Objective: To examine the effects of paternal depression during children's first year on their wellbeing at 4-5 years of age using a large, representative sample of Australian families.Design, Setting and Participants: Prospective study of Australian families from 2004 to 2008. Two-biological-parent families (n = 2620) from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children were included if depression measures were available for both parents in 2004, behavioural and developmental measures were available for children in 2008, and the families had not separated by 2008.Main Outcome Measure: Child scores on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire and on a set of Derived Outcome Indices, measured when the child was 4-5 years old. Logistic regression modelling was used to investigate how early paternal depression in 2004 influenced child outcomes 4 years later.Results: Early paternal depression was a significant predictor of a range of poorer child outcomes (odds ratio [OR] for behavioural difficulties, 3.34 [95% CI, 3.06-3.65]; OR for a low development and wellbeing score, 2.70 [95% CI, 2.44-2.98]). These effects remained significant after controlling for both early maternal depression and later paternal depression (adjusted OR for behavioural difficulties, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.75-2.14]; OR for a low development and wellbeing score, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.48-1.85]).Conclusions: Depression in fathers during the first year of a child's life can have a detrimental impact on their child's behaviour, and social and emotional development at the point of school entry, in addition to and uniquely compared with depression in mothers. Early intervention to identify and address the mental health needs of fathers is required for the benefit of fathers, children and families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Societal responses to the existence of substance misuse fluctuate between harm minimisation and prohibition. Both approaches are predominantly downstream reactions to substance misuse that focus on the supply of harmful substances and the containment of misuse through treatment, rehabilitation or punishment. Until recently, little attention has been paid to the upstream individual, family, relationship, community or societal antecedents of substance misuse (which often overlap with those for other adverse life outcomes, such as unemployment, antisocial personality disorder and mental health problems) that have operated during earlier life. A growing body of evidence highlights the overlapping biological and experiential antecedents for substance abuse and other poor outcomes as well as the trajectory-changing protective factors that can prevent risks being translated into destiny. Risk minimisation and protection enhancement embedded in family and social systems are the essential building blocks of a set of early intervention strategies that begin antenatally and continue through the developing years of childhood, adolescence and young adult life, that have been shown to be effective in improving many outcomes in development, health and well-being. Much remains to be done to enable the promise of effective universal and targeted early intervention to be translated into policies, programs and practices that could be life-changing for citizens bogged in the mire of substance misuse and their children. Realistic, timely investment, influenced by the best scientific evidence indicating what works, for whom, under what circumstances, an increased degree of collaboration within and between governments and their agencies to enable “whole of government” responses in partnership with community-based initiatives are essential along with investments in multidisciplinary program evaluation research that will enable evidence-informed policy decisions to be tailored to the needs of individual countries. [Vimpani G. Getting the mix right: family, community and social policy interventions to improve outcomes for young people at risk of substance misuse. Drug Alcohol Rev 2005;24:111 – 125] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial. Focuses on strategies to strengthen families by minimizing substance misuse. Importance of family and parenting issues in relation to preventing substance misuse; Influence of family on child development and adolescent risk behaviors; List of family characteristics which play a role in the development of substance misuse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial. Focuses on the development of population-wide strategies in countries aimed at improving the developmental health and well-being of children. Elimination of child poverty by Sure Start in Great Britain; Budget for the implementation of the Agenda for Children in Canada; Australia's Stronger Families and Communities strategy to promote intervention measures at a family and community level.

The article comments on the needs of community child health practice in Australia. The claim that training in community child health lacks quality control is not supported by evidence. Also, there is no evidence supporting the claims that research funding in community child health is comparatively poor. Instead, the existing structure is well-placed to respond to the emergence of high prevalence conditions.

The author reflects on the difficulties on reporting and notification and having substantial data from child protection agencies to monitor child maltreatment. Topics discussed include the mortality and hospital morbidity data as an alternative measure in gathering data, the suspected child abuse and neglect (SCAN) medical protocol, and broadening rules in coding to improve the capture of cases of child abuse.

The authors discuss the issue on Australian children brought to out-of-home care. It makes reference to the first national standards launched on July 1, 2011 on giving these children chances for optimum health after identification of abuse or neglect. They argue that in many cases, practice has failed to meet expectations in this regard. The authors assert the importance of providing interventions to children during the period in which maltreatment has not yet been identified.

A letter is presented from 12 health and medical health scientists including Anthony J. McMichael, Stephen R. Leeder, and Bruce K. Armstrong to the Prime Minister on climate change and its health consequences.