ArticleBMC public health2024
A policy analysis of sleep-related legislation for Canadian licensed childcare facilities.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNational legislative guidelines for sleep and rest are lacking in the Canadian licensed childcare sector. No review of Canadian legislation for licensed childcare facilities has focused on sleep. This paper provides a review of the Canadian provincial and territorial legislative landscape, regarding sleep, rest, and naps in licensed childcare centers.
methodsChildcare statutes and regulations for each province and territory were identified and downloaded on a particular date. Statutes and regulations were reviewed focusing on sections articulating licensed childcare facility mandates governing sleep, rest, naps, and sleep equipment. An excel file was used to facilitate systematic data retrieval and comparisons across provinces and territories. Two authors developed and discussed themes that summarized data from the documents.
resultsNo statutes indicated recommendations for sleep, rest, or naps. Only one regulation defined rest (Alberta). Our analysis of regulations identified four themes representing sleep, rest, and naps: programming (general programming, daily programming); space (dedicated space, amount of space, age-specific space); equipment (developmental appropriateness, acceptable sleep equipment, age-specific equipment); and safety (staffing during sleep/rest, sleep position, sleep monitoring, sleep equipment safety, prohibited practices). In Canada, minimal regulatory consistency is evident in required sleep programming, space, acceptability of sleep equipment, and sleep safety considerations. Most jurisdictions' regulations indicated necessity for developmentally appropriate rest or sleep areas and equipment, in particular for infants, but there was minimal consistency in defining infant age groups.
conclusionsAlthough we identified themes related to sleep across regulations, childcare regulations differ in their definitions of infants and specifications for children's sleep and rest in licensed Canadian childcare facilities. Without adequate definitions in legislative components of appropriate sleep duration linked to children's developmental stages, childcare facilities lack guidance to support healthy sleep for children in their care. Future research can examine translation of healthy sleep guidelines into government legislation and mandates for sleep, rest, and naps among young children in licensed childcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.