Time for a Kids Progress Administration: US Department of the Treasury Stepping Up.

This Viewpoint proposes the creation of a Kids Progress Administration housed under the US Department of the Treasury to address children's long-term health and well-being.

Unveiling early childhood health inequities by age five through the national neighborhood equity index and the early development instrument.

There is growing public urgency to close equity gaps in health and development by addressing inequities at multiple levels of children's developmental ecosystems. Current measurement strategies obscure the dynamic structural and relational patterns of oppression, adversity, and disadvantage that children can experience in their local intimate developmental ecosystem, as well as the leverage points that are necessary to change them. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between a universally available measure of neighborhood socio-economic context, the National Neighborhood Equity Index (NNEI), and a population measure of early child development and well-being, the Early Development Instrument (EDI). Data from a convenience sample of 144,957 kindergarteners in neighborhoods across the US demonstrate that children living in neighborhoods with more equity barriers are more likely to be on vulnerable developmental trajectories than those who reside in neighborhoods without any equity barriers. A multi-dimensional measurement approach that incorporates both the EDI and the NNEI can be used to quantify ethnoracialized patterns of structural disadvantage during critical periods of health development. These measures can inform community action to intervene early in the lifecourse to optimize children's health development trajectories at a population level.

Ensuring Optimal Outcomes for Preterm Infants after NICU Discharge: A Life Course Health Development Approach to High-Risk Infant Follow-Up.

Children born prematurely (<37 weeks' gestation) have an increased risk for chronic health problems and developmental challenges compared to their term-born peers. The threats to health and development posed by prematurity, the unintended effects of life-sustaining neonatal intensive care, the associated neonatal morbidities, and the profound stressors to families affect well-being during infancy, childhood, adolescence, and beyond. Specialized clinical programs provide medical and developmental follow-up care for preterm infants after hospital discharge. High-risk infant follow-up, like most post-discharge health services, has many shortcomings, including unclear goals, inadequate support for infants, parents, and families, fragmented service provisions, poor coordination among providers, and an artificially foreshortened time horizon. There are well-documented inequities in care access and delivery. We propose applying a life course health development framework to clinical follow-up for children born prematurely that is contextually appropriate, developmentally responsive, and equitably deployed. The concepts of health development, unfolding, complexity, timing, plasticity, thriving, and harmony can be mapped to key components of follow-up care delivery to address pressing health challenges. This new approach envisions a more effective version of clinical follow-up to support the best possible functional outcomes and the opportunity for every premature infant to thrive within their family and community environments over their life course.

Income is not an equalizer: health development inequities by ethnoracial backgrounds in California kindergartners.

BACKGROUND: Early childhood health development is positively associated with income, but the strength of this relationship with ethnoracial background remains unclear. This study examined the extent of health development inequities among California kindergarteners based on ethnoracial backgrounds and neighborhood-level income. METHODS: This cross-sectional study assessed health development inequities by analyzing neighborhood-level income, ethnoracial background, and health development data for California kindergarteners. Student-level data (n = 106,574) were collected through teacher report between 2010-2020 across 52 school districts and 964 schools. Student addresses were geocoded and linked to American Community Survey neighborhood income levels. Health development was measured using the Early Development Instrument, a population-level measure which includes physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, and communication skills and general knowledge domains. Outcomes included being "on-track" in each domain as well as overall health development. RESULTS: Using a Generalized Estimation Equation with a log-link function, while accounting for interactions between ethnoracial background, income, and income-squared, we found significant health development inequities by ethnoracial background and neighborhood-level income. Regarding overall health development, as well as the physical, social and emotional domains, Black students had a lower likelihood of being on-track compared to the weighted average across income levels, whereas Asian students surpassed the weighted average. White students exhibited the steepest slope, and at the lowest income levels, their health development scores were akin to their Black and Hispanic/Latino/a low-income counterparts but resembled their Asian counterparts at higher income levels. For the general knowledge and communication domain, white students consistently had the highest likelihood of being on-track, while Hispanic/Latino/a students had the lowest likelihood across all income levels. CONCLUSION: This study examines health development inequities among California kindergarteners in diverse communities. Our analysis shows that the relationship between neighborhood-level income and kindergartners' health development varies by domain and is weaker for students of color. Given the scarcity of population-level data on health development outcomes, these analyses offer valuable insights for identifying ecosystems necessitating support in promoting equitable early childhood health development.

Using a life course health development framework to combat stigma-related health disparities for individuals with intellectual and/or developmental disability (I/DD).

In the U.S., 1 in 6 children has an intellectual and/or developmental disability (I/DD). This population experiences a multitude of negative health outcomes across the life course, relative to the general population. Stigma-the social devaluation of individuals with certain characteristics, identities, or statuses within interpersonal, educational, healthcare, and policy contexts-is a potentially preventable contributor to health disparities. To date, existing approaches for addressing and preventing stigma are limited to discrete and siloed interventions that often fail to address the lifelong, cumulative impacts of the specific types of stigma experienced by the I/DD population. In the current paper, we describe three elements of Life Course Health Development (LCHD)-a novel translational framework that draws on evidence from biology, sociology, epidemiology, and psychology-that healthcare providers can use to prevent stigma-related health disparities and improve outcomes for individuals with I//DDs. We discuss the utility of targeting prevention to sensitive periods; prioritizing interventions for the most damaging types of stigmas; and leveraging supports from multiple service systems and sectors. By incorporating evidence from life course science into efforts to address stigma-related health disparities, providers can more effectively and strategically prevent and combat stigma-related health disparities for the I/DD population in childhood and across the life course.

Supporting early childhood routines to promote cardiovascular health across the life course.

Optimal cardiovascular health is an essential component of human health and well-being across the life course. Heart healthy practices around diet, physical activity, and sleep early in childhood have the potential to greatly improve lifespan and quality (Mehta et al., 2020). Early childhood routines, defined as functional practices that are predictable and repeatable, predict positive growth and development across the lifecourse (Fiese et al., 2002; Ferretti and Bub, 2017; Spagnola and Fiese, 2007). The American Heart Association has identified key heart healthy routines, such as daily regular activities including diet, physical activity, and sleep that promote cardiovascular health (Lloyd-Jones et al., 2022). Integrating the strength-based relational aspects of routines with the acquisition of cardiovascular health development capabilities allows children to establish their own optimal cardiovascular health trajectory early on. A systematic life course approach to supporting heart healthy routines in early childhood would inform clinical, research, and policy strategies to promote long-term cardiovascular health, and contribute to reducing inequalities in cardiovascular outcomes.

The role of social capital in resilience among adolescents with adverse family environments.

The Life Course Health Development (LCHD) framework underscores the profound impact of stressors during critical developmental phases on an individual's lifelong health, including their mental well-being. Among these developmental transitions, adolescence emerges as a pivotal life stage where an adolescent's mental health trajectory is significantly influenced by the various risk and promotive factors embedded within their social ecosystem. Adolescents from adverse family environments (AFEs) face heightened susceptibility to mental health challenges. Nevertheless, there are opportunities within the adolescent's environment to foster resilience. In this paper, we employ an interdisciplinary approach grounded in the LCHD framework to assess existing research pertaining to resilience, social capital, and health development. Furthermore, we aim to provide actionable recommendations tailored to healthcare providers, with a specific emphasis on strategies to augment mental health outcomes among adolescent populations, particularly those experiencing AFEs.

Positive Childhood Experiences and Adult Health Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) can drive poor adult mental and physical health, but the impact of early life protective factors should not be overlooked. Positive childhood experiences (PCEs) measures quantify protective factors, but evidence is lacking on their link to health conditions independent of ACEs in nationally representative studies. This study examines associations between composite PCE score and adult health, adjusting for ACEs. METHODS: The most recent 2017 wave of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, a nationally representative study and its 2014 Childhood Retrospective Circumstances supplement (n = 7496) collected adult health outcomes, PCEs, and ACEs. Multivariable logistic regression assessed associations between PCE score and adult self-rated health or condition diagnosis, with and without ACEs adjustment. Cox proportional hazards models examined relationships between PCEs, ACEs, and annual risk of diagnosis. RESULTS: Adults with 5 to 6 PCEs had 75% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-0.93) of the risk of fair/poor overall health and 74% of the risk of any psychiatric diagnosis (CI, 0.59-0.89) compared with those with 0 to 2 PCEs, independent of ACEs. In survival analysis models accounting for PCEs and ACEs, reporting 5 to 6 PCEs was associated with a 16% lower annual hazard of developing any adult psychiatric or physical condition (hazard ratio, 0.84; CI, 0.75-0.94); reporting 3+ ACEs was associated with a 42% higher annual hazard (CI, 1.27-1.59). CONCLUSIONS: PCEs were independently associated with lower risks of fair or poor adult health, adult mental health problems, and developing any physical or mental health condition at any given age after adjusting for ACEs.

Dashboards as Mechanisms for Community Empowerment: Developing a Prototype for Child and Adolescent Well-being in California.

CONTEXT: In recent years, stakeholders in public health have emphasized measuring young peoples' well-being as a more holistic and upstream approach to understanding their health and development. However, summarizing the available indicators of well-being in ways that strengthen ongoing policy and community efforts remains a challenge. PROGRAM: Our objective was to develop a measurement framework of young peoples' well-being that would be engaging and actionable to a broad and diverse set of stakeholders in California. IMPLEMENTATION: We began with a scan of the relevant literature documenting previous efforts to measure young peoples' well-being, both within the United States and internationally. Subsequently, we individually interviewed a set of key informants and then convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to solicit feedback on our approach. Throughout this iterative and collaborative process, we developed and refined a measurement framework based on the information provided across these various sources. EVALUATION: Findings suggest data dashboards are a promising approach for presenting a parsimonious yet holistic picture of young peoples' well-being. Dashboards can highlight well-being's multidimensionality by categorizing indicators over different domains. Our framework organizes indicators over 5 types: child-centric, subjective well-being, contextual determinants, developmental, and equity-focused. The design and flexibility of dashboards can also highlight important gaps in data collection that are of interest to end users such as indicators not yet collected among the broader population. Furthermore, dashboards can include interactive features, such as selecting key data elements, that can help communities articulate priority areas for policy action, thereby generating momentum and enthusiasm for future iterations and improvements. DISCUSSION: Data dashboards are well suited for engaging a variety of stakeholders on complex multidimensional concepts such as young peoples' well-being. However, to fulfill their promise, they should be codesigned and codeveloped through an iterative process with the stakeholders and community members they intend to serve.

Mixed Signals in Child and Adolescent Mental Health and Well-Being Indicators in the United States: A Call for Improvements to Population Health Monitoring.

Policy Points Social indicators of young peoples' conditions and circumstances, such as high school graduation, food insecurity, and smoking, are improving even as subjective indicators of mental health and well-being have been worsening. This divergence suggests policies targeting the social indicators may not have improved overall mental health and well-being. There are several plausible reasons for this seeming contradiction. Available data suggest the culpability of one or several common exposures poorly captured by existing social indicators. Resolving this disconnect requires significant investments in population-level data systems to support a more holistic, child-centric, and up-to-date understanding of young people's lives.

Reimagining Children's Rights in the US.

Importance: The US faces a pivotal moment of opportunity and risk regarding issues affecting children (aged 0-17 years). Although the US remains the only United Nations member state to not have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a child rights framework is essential for child health professionals seeking to advance many issues affecting children in the US. The Reimagining Children's Rights project (2020-2021) conducted an in-depth environmental scan of relevant literature and policy analysis using the Three Horizons design process to assess strategies that could advance the rights and well-being of children in the US. The project was overseen by a steering committee and informed by an advisory committee composed of youth leaders and experts in children's rights, advocacy, health, law, and a range of child-specific issues (eg, youth justice, early childhood development), who provided expert input on strategic considerations for advancing children's rights. Observations: Seven findings about advancing children's rights in the US are notable, all reflecting current gaps and opportunities for using a whole-child rights framework in the US, even without formal adoption of the CRC. Actionable strategies, tactics, and tools to leverage sustainable change in the multitude of issue areas can advance the current state of children's rights. High-potential strategies for catalyzing advancement of children's rights include youth activism, innovations in governance and accountability, legislative action, impact litigation, place-based initiatives, education and public awareness, alignment with other children's movements, and research. The child rights framework is unifying and adaptive to future unforeseen challenges. Conclusions and Relevance: Children's rights provide a powerful, synergistic framework for child health professionals-in partnership with youth and other leaders-to increase equity and protect the rights and well-being of all children in the US.

Trends in Measures of Child and Adolescent Well-being in the US From 2000 to 2019.

Importance: Improving child and adolescent well-being is a critical public health goal, yet monitoring of this measure at the national level remains limited. Composite indices aggregate existing indicators from population data sources, but these indices currently have weaknesses that may inhibit widespread use. Objective: To apply a novel, more child-centric index method to document changes in overall child and adolescent well-being in the US from 2000 to 2019, assess which states and racial and ethnic subpopulations experienced the greatest inequities in well-being, and identify the specific components associated with changes in the index over time. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study applied the Child and Adolescent Thriving Index 1.0 to population-level data from 2000 to 2019 from several data sources. The area-based sampling frame for each of the component data sources allowed for nationally representative estimates for every year of the study period. The indices for every state and by race and ethnicity were also calculated. Due to the scope and breadth of the index components from across the life course, the Child and Adolescent Thriving Index 1.0 is intended to approximate the well-being of persons up to age 17 years. Data were analyzed from June 7, 2021, to March 17, 2022. Exposures: Time in years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The Child and Adolescent Thriving Index 1.0 is a weighted mean of 11 indicators intended to proxy well-being. The index comprises 11 components: non-low birth weight in neonates, preschool attendance in children aged 3 to 4 years, reading proficiency in fourth-grade students, math proficiency in eighth-grade students, food security in children younger than 18 years, general health status, nonobesity in high school students, nonsmoking in adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, non-marijuana use in adolescents aged 12 to 17 years, high school graduation in young adults aged 18 to 21 years, and nonarrest rate in children aged 10 to 17 years. The index ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 indicating minimum and 1 indicating maximum possible well-being at the population level. Results: The Child and Adolescent Thriving Index 1.0 was applied to data from 12 320 national, state, and racial and ethnic population-level estimates. Over the study period, the Child and Adolescent Thriving Index 1.0 score increased from 0.780 points in 2000 to 0.843 points in 2019. Despite some convergence in geographic and racial and ethnic disparities, inequities were still present in 2019 in the South (-0.021 points) compared with the Northeast and among American Indian or Alaska Native (-0.079 points), Black (-0.053 points), and Latinx (-0.047 points) children and adolescents compared with White youths. Index components most associated with the overall increases in index scores of well-being were high school graduation rate (+0.028 units) and nonsmoking in adolescents (+0.022 units), amounting to 80.6% of the total increase. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study suggest that child and adolescent well-being scores increased from 2000 to 2019, but substantial work remains to address persistent inequities across states and racial and ethnic populations. The newly developed Child and Adolescent Thriving Index 1.0 may be used in future work to evaluate which public policy types (economic, social, health care, housing, or education) are associated with higher levels of well-being.

The Child and Adolescent Thriving Index 1.0: Developing a Measure of the Outcome Indicators of Well-Being for Population Health Assessment.

The well-being of children and adolescents is emerging as an area of interest for population health measurement. Previous approaches assessing national and state trends in well-being have relied on composite indices. However, these methodologies suffer from several weaknesses. This paper develops an improved index for the United States that is measurable with existing population-data resources. It derives the appropriate weights for items in this index using a longitudinal panel of 2,942 children in the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Candidate component measures are selected for the index based on their demonstrated association with several subjective scales assessed during young adulthood. The final index demonstrates that a broad range of measures indicate higher levels of population-level well-being. The predictive validity of the index for outcomes during young adulthood is also assessed: a one-standard-deviation increase in the index score is associated with a 7.9-percentage-point decrease [95% CI: 5.9 - 9.8] in ever reporting fair or poor health, a 6.3-percentage-point decrease [95% CI: 4.6 - 8.0] in ever reporting depression, and a 17.2% [95% CI: 13.7% - 20.5%] increase in peak earnings. These values for predictive validity are slightly higher than those of existing methodologies. We also find that incorporating contextual indicators from childhood and adolescence does not substantively improve predictive validity. Policy-makers and government agencies interested in population-level well-being of children and adolescents can continue to use existing indices as reasonable proxies, but should also commit to upgrading data systems to make them more child-centric in the future. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12187-022-09962-0.

The Gross Developmental Potential (GDP2): a new approach for measuring human potential and wellbeing.

Many factors influence the health and well-being of children and the adults they will become. Yet there are significant gaps in how trajectories of healthy development are measured, how the potential for leading a healthy life is evaluated, and how that information can guide upstream policies and investments. The Gross Developmental Potential (GDP2) is proposed as a new capabilities-based framework for assessing threats to thriving and understanding progress in achieving lifelong health and wellbeing. Moving beyond the Gross Domestic Product's (GDP) focus on economic productivity as a measure of progress, the GDP2 focuses on seven essential developmental capabilities for lifelong health and wellbeing. The GDP2 capability domains include Health -living a healthy life; Needs-satisfying basic human requirements; Communication-expressing and understanding thoughts and feelings; Learning-lifelong learning; Adaption -adapting to change; Connections -connecting with others; and Community -engaging in the community. The project team utilized literature reviews and meetings with the subject and technical experts to develop the framework. The framework was then vetted in focus groups of community leaders from three diverse settings. The community leaders' input refined the domains and their applications. This prototype GDP2 framework will next be used to develop specific measures and indices and guide the development of community-level GDP2 dashboards for local sense-making, learning, and application.

The Emergence of Life Course Intervention Research: Optimizing Health Development and Child Well-Being.

Advances in life course health science, systems biology, and epigenetics suggest that health development can be represented as a trajectory affected by multiple risk and protective factors arrayed in a relational developmental ecosystem across child, family, community, and systems levels. Despite tremendous potential for early life interventions at multiple levels of this ecosystem to improve children's life course health trajectories, this potential has not been fully explored. In fact, Life Course Health Development is a low priority for both health care and research funding. Representing the work of the Life Course Intervention Research Network, this supplement to Pediatrics reports on the first steps taken to define the emerging discipline of life course intervention research. Articles cover the characteristics of life course interventions together with a research framework and core competencies for this work. Topics include family, community, and youth engagement as vital components of grounding this work in health equity, family health development and its measurement, supporting children after prematurity, and new approaches to early childhood mental health. Schools and telehealth are considered innovative platforms for life course interventions, whereas cross-sector partnerships are recognized as key components of interventions to address childhood adversity. Researchers apply a Life Course Health Development lens to juvenile justice issues, including the minimum age law, and consider potential trade-offs whereby "striving" (education and income mobility) can limit "thriving" (health mobility) for people of color and those raised in low-income families. Finally, we present the Australian experience of embedding life course interventions in longitudinal studies.

A Framework for Cross-Sector Partnerships to Address Childhood Adversity and Improve Life Course Health.

Childhood adversity and its structural causes drive lifelong and intergenerational inequities in health and well-being. Health care systems increasingly understand the influence of childhood adversity on health outcomes but cannot treat these deep and complex issues alone. Cross-sector partnerships, which integrate health care, food support, legal, housing, and financial services among others, are becoming increasingly recognized as effective approaches address health inequities. What principles should guide the design of cross-sector partnerships that address childhood adversity and promote Life Course Health Development (LCHD)? The complex effects of childhood adversity on health development are explained by LCHD concepts, which serve as the foundation for a cross-sector partnership that optimizes lifelong health. We review the evolution of cross-sector partnerships in health care to inform the development of an LCHD-informed partnership framework geared to address childhood adversity and LCHD. This framework outlines guiding principles to direct partnerships toward life course-oriented action: (1) proactive, developmental, and longitudinal investment; (2) integration and codesign of care networks; (3) collective, community and systemic impact; and (4) equity in praxis and outcomes. Additionally, the framework articulates foundational structures necessary for implementation: (1) a shared cross-sector theory of change; (2) relational structures enabling shared leadership, trust, and learning; (3) linked data and communication platforms; and (4) alternative funding models for shared savings and prospective investment. The LCHD-informed cross-sector partnership framework presented here can be a guide for the design and implementation of cross-sector partnerships that effectively address childhood adversity and advance health equity through individual-, family-, community-, and system-level intervention.

What Makes an Intervention a Life Course Intervention?

OBJECTIVES: To develop an initial list of characteristics of life course interventions to inform the emerging discipline of life course intervention research. METHODS: The Life Course Intervention Research Network, a collaborative national network of >75 researchers, service providers, community representatives, and thought leaders, considered the principles, characteristics, and utility of life course interventions. After an in-person launch meeting in 2019, the steering committee collaboratively and iteratively developed a list of life course intervention characteristics, incorporating a modified Delphi review process. RESULTS: The Life Course Intervention Research Network identified 12 characteristics of life course interventions. These interventions (1) are aimed at optimizing health trajectories; (2) are developmentally focused, (3) longitudinally focused, and (4) strategically timed; and are (5) designed to address multiple levels of the ecosystem where children are born, live, learn, and grow and (6) vertically, horizontally, and longitudinally integrated to produce a seamless, forward-leaning, health optimizing system. Interventions are designed to (7) support emerging health development capabilities; are (8) collaboratively codesigned by transdisciplinary research teams, including stakeholders; and incorporate (9) family-centered, (10) strengths-based, and (11) antiracist approaches with (12) a focus on health equity. CONCLUSIONS: The intention for this list of characteristics of life course interventions is to provide a starting point for wider discussion and to guide research development. Incorporation of these characteristics into intervention designs may improve emerging health trajectories and move critical developmental processes and pathways back on track, even optimizing them to prevent or reduce adverse outcomes.