Sentences with phrase «higher family adversity»

Higher family adversity index scores were associated with higher prevalence of poor child health and health behaviours, with two exceptions.

In the case of limiting long - term illness, there was no clear increase in prevalence with higher family adversity score, although any score above zero was associated with a greater risk of limiting long - term illness compared to children with no family adversity.

In the case of limiting long - term illness, any family adversity was associated with a greater risk of illness but there was no clear increase in prevalence with higher family adversity.

The findings showed that, in general, the higher the family adversity index score, the higher the prevalence of poor child health and health behaviours.

In accordance with Laucht et al, 27 we dichotomized the distribution into low family adversity (0 or 1 risk factor present) and high family adversity (≥ 2 risk factors).

Not exact matches

Adversity is commonly defined as anything children perceive as a threat to their physical safety or that jeopardizes their family or social structure, including emotional, physical or sexual abuse, neglect, bullying by peers, violence at home, parental divorce, separation or death, parental substance abuse, living in a neighborhood with high crime rates, homelessness, discrimination, poverty and the loss of a relative or another loved one.

The Scope of this project is to: - Provide seed funding and support pilot implementation of ideas resulting from the June 2014 design workshop on improving outcomes for babies in foster care; - Launch pilots of co-designed strategies for working collaboratively with parents in creating daily, regularized family routines in four sites and evaluate executive function skills, child development, child literacy and parental stress levels of participants pre -, during, and post-intervention; - Build a core group of leaders to help set the strategic direction for Frontiers of Innovation (FOI) and take on leadership for parts of the portfolio; - With Phil Fisher at the University of Oregon and Holly Schindler at the University of Washington develop a measurement and data collection framework and infrastructure in order to collect data from FOI - sponsored pilots and increase cross-site and cross-strategy learning; Organize Building Adult Capabilities Working Group to identify, measure and develop strategies related to executive function and emotional regulation for adults facing high levels of adversity and produce summary report in the fall of 2014 that reviews the knowledge base in this area and implications for intervention, including approaches that impact two generations.

2:30 p.m. Supporting Children and Families Experiencing Adversity Through High - Quality Early Education

Find out how, with the support of his charter school family, Erik overcame adversity to graduate high school, attend college and become the legal guardian of his brothers.

The trial regions are selected for their high prevalence of families experiencing socioeconomic and psychosocial adversity, a mix of metropolitan and regional areas, and interest from the universal CFH services in participating in the trial.

In particular, a high number of family adversity factors and maternal depression significantly predicted long - term failure, and maternal insecure - avoidant attachment attitude showed a trend in this direction.

Depression and attachment insecurity of the primary caregiver and more distal family adversity factors (such as incomplete schooling or vocational training of parents, high person - to - room ratio, early parenthood, and broken - home history of parents) were found to best predict inadequate parenting13, 14 and precede the development of a child's low compliance with parents, low effortful control, and behavior problems.13, 15, — , 17 These psychosocial familial characteristics might also constrain the transfer of program contents into everyday family life and the maintenance of modified behaviors after the conclusion of the programs.

The concept of resilience and closely related research regarding protective factors provides one avenue for addressing mental well - being that is suggested to have an impact on adolescent substance use.8 — 17 Resilience has been variably defined as the process of, capacity for, or outcome of successful adaptation in the context of risk or adversity.9, 10, 12, 13, 18 Despite this variability, it is generally agreed that a range of individual and environmental protective factors are thought to: contribute to an individual's resilience; be critical for positive youth development and protect adolescents from engaging in risk behaviours, such as substance use.19 — 22 Individual or internal resilience factors refer to the personal skills and traits of young people (including self - esteem, empathy and self - awareness).23 Environmental or external resilience factors refer to the positive influences within a young person's social environment (including connectedness to family, school and community).23 Various studies have separately reported such factors to be negatively associated with adolescent use of different types of substances, 12, 16, 24 — 36 for example, higher self - esteem16, 29, 32, 35 is associated with lower likelihood of tobacco and alcohol use.

Using a public health frame, we will examine how three evidence - based home visiting models form a continuum of interventions directly addressing this challenge: (1) Family Connects provides nearly universal assessment of needs for families of newborns, with connection to community services (Karen O'Donnell, Duke University); (2) Healthy Families America focuses on prevention through facilitating nurturing relationships and connection to services (Kathleen Strader, Healthy Families America); and (3) Child First targets the most vulnerable young children and families, who have experienced high levels of trauma and adversity, through a team approach providing comprehensive care coordination and mental health intervention for both parent and child (Darcy Lowell, Childfamilies of newborns, with connection to community services (Karen O'Donnell, Duke University); (2) Healthy Families America focuses on prevention through facilitating nurturing relationships and connection to services (Kathleen Strader, Healthy Families America); and (3) Child First targets the most vulnerable young children and families, who have experienced high levels of trauma and adversity, through a team approach providing comprehensive care coordination and mental health intervention for both parent and child (Darcy Lowell, ChildFamilies America focuses on prevention through facilitating nurturing relationships and connection to services (Kathleen Strader, Healthy Families America); and (3) Child First targets the most vulnerable young children and families, who have experienced high levels of trauma and adversity, through a team approach providing comprehensive care coordination and mental health intervention for both parent and child (Darcy Lowell, ChildFamilies America); and (3) Child First targets the most vulnerable young children and families, who have experienced high levels of trauma and adversity, through a team approach providing comprehensive care coordination and mental health intervention for both parent and child (Darcy Lowell, Childfamilies, who have experienced high levels of trauma and adversity, through a team approach providing comprehensive care coordination and mental health intervention for both parent and child (Darcy Lowell, Child First).

[3] We now know that negative, inconsistent parental behaviour in families with high levels of adversity are associated with emergence of problems in early childhood and later life.

The strong patterning of parenting according to family adversity in itself suggests that parents in higher - risk groups may need additional help in addressing obstacles to more skilful parenting of their children.

That is, parenting skills accounted for more inequalities in health for those families experiencing the highest levels of adversity (shown by the wider gaps between the two lines towards the right - hand side of the graphs).

In the group with no family adversity (e.g. those with a family adversity score of zero), the majority (79 %) of parents had high or average parenting skills.

Compared to children in families with a zero family adversity score, levels of limiting long - term illness were greater in children with a family adversity score of one or more, but did not show a clear increase with a higher adversity score.

Especially among families with high levels of socio - economic disadvantage or family adversity, children's relations with both parents might benefit from greater family access to professional parenting support.

This implies that parenting may help to explain some of the inequalities in child health behaviours linked to family adversity, particularly among those families experiencing higher levels of adversity.

Families with the highest adversity score had less optimal parenting practices, with lower connection, greater negativity and less control.

Parents in families with higher adversity scores were less likely to have a warm relationship with their child, to share joint activities, to have low conflict and avoid smacking and to exercise control over their child's behaviour.

2 MEASURING CHILD HEALTH AND FAMILY ADVERSITY 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Key findings 2.3 Health measures 2.3.1 General health 2.3.2 Limiting long - term illness 2.3.3 Social, behavioural and emotional problems 2.3.4 Health problems 2.3.5 Accidents and injuries 2.3.6 Dental health 2.4 Health behaviour measures 2.4.1 Physical activity 2.4.2 Screen time 2.4.3 Fruit and vegetable consumption 2.4.4 Snacking on items with high sugar / fat content 2.4.5 Associations between health behaviours and child health 2.5 Family adversity 2.5.1 Associations between family adversity and child health 2.5.2 Associations between family adversity and health behaviours 2.6 SFAMILY ADVERSITY 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Key findings 2.3 Health measures 2.3.1 General health 2.3.2 Limiting long - term illness 2.3.3 Social, behavioural and emotional problems 2.3.4 Health problems 2.3.5 Accidents and injuries 2.3.6 Dental health 2.4 Health behaviour measures 2.4.1 Physical activity 2.4.2 Screen time 2.4.3 Fruit and vegetable consumption 2.4.4 Snacking on items with high sugar / fat content 2.4.5 Associations between health behaviours and child health 2.5 Family adversity 2.5.1 Associations between family adversity and child health 2.5.2 Associations between family adversity and health behaviours 2.6 SFAMILY ADVERSITY 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Key findings 2.3 Health measures 2.3.1 General health 2.3.2 Limiting long - term illness 2.3.3 Social, behavioural and emotional problems 2.3.4 Health problems 2.3.5 Accidents and injuries 2.3.6 Dental health 2.4 Health behaviour measures 2.4.1 Physical activity 2.4.2 Screen time 2.4.3 Fruit and vegetable consumption 2.4.4 Snacking on items with high sugar / fat content 2.4.5 Associations between health behaviours and child health 2.5 Family adversity 2.5.1 Associations between family adversity and child health 2.5.2 Associations between family adversity and health behaviours 2.ADVERSITY 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Key findings 2.3 Health measures 2.3.1 General health 2.3.2 Limiting long - term illness 2.3.3 Social, behavioural and emotional problems 2.3.4 Health problems 2.3.5 Accidents and injuries 2.3.6 Dental health 2.4 Health behaviour measures 2.4.1 Physical activity 2.4.2 Screen time 2.4.3 Fruit and vegetable consumption 2.4.4 Snacking on items with high sugar / fat content 2.4.5 Associations between health behaviours and child health 2.5 Family adversity 2.5.1 Associations between family adversity and child health 2.5.2 Associations between family adversity and health behaviours 2.6 SFamily adversity 2.5.1 Associations between family adversity and child health 2.5.2 Associations between family adversity and health behaviours 2.6 SFamily adversity 2.5.1 Associations between family adversity and child health 2.5.2 Associations between family adversity and health behaviours 2.adversity 2.5.1 Associations between family adversity and child health 2.5.2 Associations between family adversity and health behaviours 2.6 Sfamily adversity and child health 2.5.2 Associations between family adversity and health behaviours 2.6 Sfamily adversity and child health 2.5.2 Associations between family adversity and health behaviours 2.adversity and child health 2.5.2 Associations between family adversity and health behaviours 2.6 Sfamily adversity and health behaviours 2.6 Sfamily adversity and health behaviours 2.adversity and health behaviours 2.6 Summary

Again, the greatest reductions in the odds of poor health behaviours are seen at higher levels of family adversity.

Families experiencing high (n = 58) and low (n = 63) levels of psychosocial adversity were recruited to the study during pregnancy.

Variations in the type, severity, chronicity and timing of maternal depression [9], heterogeneity in sampling (community versus high - risk multiproblem samples), and potentiating risk factors, such as family adversity, low social support and financial stress [10], all contribute to differences in outcomes in children.