Intervening early’

Agendas and rationalisations for children’s developmental health

Bibliographic Data

ID12889231
AuthorsCéline Cressman (0000-0003-3262-0602, University of Toronto, corresponding author), Fiona A Miller (0000-0003-4953-6255, University of Toronto), Astrid Guttmann (0000-0001-8177-2253, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences), J Cairney (0000-0003-2856-3967, University of Toronto), Robin Z Hayeems (0000-0003-3269-8004, University of Toronto)
Year2019
Volume16
Issue3
Pages413-428
Publication date2019-09-04
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueEvidence & Policy (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1744-2648 • E-ISSN: 1744-2656
PublisherPolicy Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1332/174426419x15675223005790
OpenAlexW2972261930
LanguageEN
Citations received1
References cited26

Background: Despite broad scientific consensus about the importance of the early years in the lifelong health and wellbeing of children, there is debate about whether and how healthcare professionals can optimise early child development through monitoring or screening. The evidence in support of a systematic population-level intervention is disputed, which is reflected in the diversity of approaches to developmental screening internationally. Methods: Using a case-study design, and interpretive qualitative methods, we explored how Canadian experts in child health (n=39): a) rationalise why they do, or would, pursue population-level developmental screening; b) articulate the policy goals of such an intervention, and; c) justify the practice with reference to evidence. Findings: Respondents identified three distinct framings, or policy agendas, for what developmental screening can and should seek to achieve, specifically: 1) as medical intervention, facilitating the early identification of health risk or disorder; 2) as social intervention, providing an opportunity for communication and connection with parents for all children; and 3) as political intervention, staking a claim for early child health on the broader political agenda. Discussion and conclusions: Each agenda is justified by distinct types of evidence, posing a challenge to simplistic models of evidence-based policymaking, and demonstrating that evidence is not just an input, but a contested part of a dynamic and political policymaking process

Diversity (politics · Environmental health · Epistemology · Health care · Intervention (counseling · Political science · Politics · Population · Public relations · Scientific evidence · Child and Adolescent Health · Early Childhood Education and Development · Food Security and Health in Diverse Populations · Law · Medicine · Nursing · Psychology

Tools

Open DOI