ArticleBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2024
[Early childhood intervention and children's health development : Exemplary findings and methodological challenges in the use of the school entry examination].
Article in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEarly childhood intervention is intended to systematically network and customise support services, particularly for socio-economically disadvantaged families. The programmes are universal or selective, but the evidence on their effectiveness is limited.
aimsThe aims of this study were to exemplary analyse whether participants in early childhood intervention services had better development than non-participants using the school entry examination (SEE) as well as to discuss to what extent the SEE can be used to assess the impact of early childhood intervention services.
methodsWe analysed three typical offers of early childhood intervention services (family education; Zukunft für Kinder (ZfK); Kita-U) in relation to full vaccination coverage and age-appropriate development at U9. Data from 4579 Düsseldorf first graders were included. Propensity score matching was used to calculate percentage differences (average treatment effect on the treated; ATT) in terms of immunisation coverage and development between comparable intervention and control groups.
resultsAll programmes are associated with a slightly increased probability of full vaccination protection (ATT 2.1 for family education; 2.5 for ZfK; 5.3 for Kita-U). Family education is also associated with a slightly higher probability of age-appropriate development (ATT 1.6), while the probability of age-appropriate development is lower for participants in ZfK (-10.1) and Kita‑U (-4.5). DISCUSSION: The evaluation of early childhood intervention, especially selective services, is a methodological challenge due to confounding and suitable comparison groups. However, the SEE could be a framework for impact analyses under specific conditions.
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.