Disparities in Newborn Hearing Screening Outcomes in the United States From 2007 to 2017.

OBJECTIVE: Establishing timely language intervention for children who are deaf or hard of hearing is crucial for their cognitive and language development. Newborn hearing screening (NBHS) programs are now commonplace, but disparities in receipt of support may exist. This study seeks to investigate if states with more diverse populations, less educated mothers, fewer resources, and no legislative mandate of screening have lower rates of milestone completion. STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. SETTING: Data describing screening, identification, and intervention rates from individual state NBHS programs were aggregated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from 2007 to 2017. METHODS: Regression models were fitted to assess associations between these outcomes and state demographic and policy variables. Forest plots from meta-analyses were used to obtain nationwide pooled estimates of the relative risk (RR) of maternal predictors from individual state data. RESULTS: State averages of maternal education level, age, and race/ethnicity were found to be significantly associated with various outcomes. The presence of program funding and legislative state mandate were associated with multiple improved outcomes. Meta-analyses identified increased RRs for most outcomes based on maternal education less than high school, age 19 and below, and non-White race/ethnicity. CONCLUSION: There is evidence of disparities in access to and timing of screening, identification testing, and intervention by various demographic and policy factors at the state level. More research is needed to further explore these relationships and determine how to address existing disparities in order to provide more equitable care.

Neighborhood Poverty and Child Health: Investing in Communities to Improve Childhood Opportunity and Well-Being.

If ZIP code is more important than genetic code in determining one's health and opportunities, how can pediatricians enable healthy and opportunity-rich environments for all children? This paper introduces a broad network of organizations, policies, and financial resources that are working to improve ZIP codes by tackling poverty at the neighborhood level. The mission-driven US community development sector began with the War on Poverty in the 1960s and 70s and comprises a network of finance, real estate, and community-based organizations working together to overturn decades of racially motivated disinvestment, revitalize persistently marginalized, low-income communities, and enhance the lives of the people who live in them. Across the country, thousands of community development corporations, community development financial institutions, affordable housing developers, and regulated for-profit banks together invest over $300 billion annually in affordable housing, childcare and early learning facilities, recreation centers, community clinics, grocery stores, small businesses, and financial services for low-income families and neighborhoods. We present successful examples of community development efforts targeting child health and opportunity and highlight opportunities for pediatricians to advise, collaborate, and partner in order to accelerate and maximize the impact of billions of dollars invested in support of healthier neighborhoods where all children can grow and thrive.

Exploring consensus across sectors for measuring the social determinants of health.

The importance of social determinants of health (SDOH) -such as affordable housing, stable employment, consistent transportation, healthy food access, and quality schools-is well-established as a key component of chronic disease prevention and health promotion. Increasingly, practitioners within and beyond public health are collaborating to implement such strategies, part of which involves measuring their impacts over time. This study assesses the current state of SDOH measurement across sectors by systematically identifying how many and what kinds of tools exist and whether there is consensus around SDOH categories and indicators selected. This study revealed that while numerous SDOH measurement resources exist, relatively few are tools for measuring the SDOH. Although the SDOH categories being measured could be readily summarized across tools, there was wide variation in the particular SDOH categories included in each tool. Finally, remarkably little consensus exists for the specific indicators used to measure SDOH categories. While complete consensus across tools may not be possible, learning how different sectors measure SDOH and more systematically aligning SDOH categories and indicators being measured will enable greater collaboration and deepen the impacts of place-based interventions to improve community health and well-being.

Neighborhood Child Opportunity and Individual-Level Pediatric Acute Care Use and Diagnoses.

: media-1vid110.1542/5751513300001PEDS-VA_2017-2309Video Abstract OBJECTIVES: Although health care providers and systems are increasingly interested in patients' nonmedical needs as a means to improve health, little is known about neighborhood conditions that contribute to child health problems. We sought to determine if a novel, publicly available measure of neighborhood context, the Child Opportunity Index, was associated with pediatric acute care visit frequency and diagnoses. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included San Francisco residents <18 years of age with an emergency department and/or urgent care visit to any of 3 medical systems (N = 47 175) between 2007 and 2011. Hot-spot analysis was used to compare the spatial distribution of neighborhood child opportunity and income. Generalized estimating equation logistic regression models were used to examine independent associations between neighborhood child opportunity and frequent acute care use (≥4 visits per year) and diagnosis group after adjusting for neighborhood income and patient age, sex, race and/or ethnicity, payer, and health system. RESULTS: Neighborhood child opportunity and income had distinct spatial distributions, and we identified different clusters of high- and low-risk neighborhoods. Children living in the lowest opportunity neighborhoods had significantly greater odds of ≥4 acute care visits per year (odds ratio 1.33; 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.73) compared with those in the highest opportunity neighborhoods. Neighborhood child opportunity was negatively associated with visits for respiratory conditions, asthma, assault, and ambulatory care-sensitive conditions but positively associated with injury-related visits. CONCLUSIONS: The Child Opportunity Index could be an effective tool for identifying neighborhood factors beyond income related to child health.

An Unconditional Prenatal Income Supplement Reduces Population Inequities In Birth Outcomes.

The Commission on Social Determinants of Health, sponsored by the World Health Organization, has identified measuring health inequities and evaluating interventions to reduce them as important priorities. We examined whether an unconditional prenatal income supplement for low-income women was associated with reduced population-level inequities in birth outcomes. We identified all mother-newborn pairs from the period 2003-10 in Manitoba, Canada, and divided them into the following three groups: low income exposed (received the supplement); low income unexposed (did not receive the supplement); and not low income unexposed (ineligible for the supplement). We measured inequities in low-birthweight births, preterm births, and breast-feeding initiation among these groups. The findings indicated that the socioeconomic gap in birth outcomes between low-income and other women was significantly smaller when the low-income women received the income supplement than when they did not. The prenatal income supplement may be an important driver in attaining population-level equity in birth outcomes; its success could inform strategies seeking to improve maternal and child health.

Unconditional Prenatal Income Supplement and Birth Outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Perinatal outcomes have improved in developed countries but remain poor for disadvantaged populations. We examined whether an unconditional income supplement to low-income pregnant women was associated with improved birth outcomes. METHODS: This study included all mother-newborn pairs (2003-2010) in Manitoba, Canada, where the mother received prenatal social assistance, the infant was born in the hospital, and the pair had a risk screen (N = 14 591). Low-income women who received the income supplement (Healthy Baby Prenatal Benefit [HBPB], n = 10 738) were compared with low-income women who did not receive HBPB (n = 3853) on the following factors: low birth weight, preterm, small and large for gestational age, Apgar score, breastfeeding initiation, neonatal readmission, and newborn hospital length of stay (LOS). Covariates from risk screens were used to develop propensity scores and to balance differences between groups in regression models; γ sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess sensitivity to unmeasured confounding. Population-attributable and preventable fractions were calculated. RESULTS: HBPB was associated with reductions in low birth weight (aRR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.63-0.81]), preterm births (aRR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.69-0.84]) and small for gestational age births (aRR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.81-0.99]) and increases in breastfeeding (aRR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.09]) and large for gestational age births (aRR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.05-1.23]). For vaginal births, HBPB was associated with shortened LOS (weighted mean, 2.86; P < .0001). Results for breastfeeding, low birth weight, preterm birth, and LOS were robust to unmeasured confounding. Reductions of 21% (95% CI, 13.6-28.3) for low birth weight births and 17.5% (95% CI, 11.2-23.8) for preterm births were associated with HBPB. CONCLUSIONS: Receipt of an unconditional prenatal income supplement was associated with positive outcomes. Placing conditions on income supplements may not be necessary to promote prenatal and perinatal health.

Family structure and multiple domains of child well-being in the United States: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: We examine the association between family structure and children's health care utilization, barriers to health care access, health, and schooling and cognitive outcomes and assess whether socioeconomic status (SES) accounts for those family structure differences. We advance prior research by focusing on understudied but increasingly common family structures including single father families and five different family structures that include grandparents. METHODS: Our data on United States children aged birth through 17 (unweighted N = 198,864) come from the 1997-2013 waves of the National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative, publicly available, household-based sample. We examine 17 outcomes across nine family structures, including married couple, cohabiting couple, single mother, and single father families, with and without grandparents, and skipped-generation families that include children and grandparents but not parents. The SES measures include family income, home ownership, and parents' or grandparents' (depending on who is in the household) employment and education. RESULTS: Compared to children living with married couples, children in single mother, extended single mother, and cohabiting couple families average poorer outcomes, but children in single father families sometimes average better health outcomes. The presence of grandparents in single parent, cohabiting, or married couple families does not buffer children from adverse outcomes. SES only partially explains family structure disparities in children's well-being. CONCLUSIONS: All non-married couple family structures are associated with some adverse outcomes among children, but the degree of disadvantage varies across family structures. Efforts to understand and improve child well-being might be most effective if they recognize the increasing diversity in children's living arrangements.

Neighborhood adversity, child health, and the role for community development.

Despite medical advances, childhood health and well-being have not been broadly achieved due to rising chronic diseases and conditions related to child poverty. Family and neighborhood living conditions can have lasting consequences for health, with community adversity affecting health outcomes in significant part through stress response and increased allostatic load. Exposure to this "toxic stress" influences gene expression and brain development with direct and indirect negative consequences for health. Ensuring healthy child development requires improving conditions in distressed, high-poverty neighborhoods by reducing children's exposure to neighborhood stressors and supporting good family and caregiver functioning. The community development industry invests more than $200 billion annually in low-income neighborhoods, with the goal of improving living conditions for residents. The most impactful investments have transformed neighborhoods by integrating across sectors to address both the built environment and the social and service environment. By addressing many facets of the social determinants of health at once, these efforts suggest substantial results for children, but health outcomes generally have not been considered or evaluated. Increased partnership between the health sector and community development can bring health outcomes explicitly into focus for community development investments, help optimize intervention strategies for health, and provide natural experiments to build the evidence base for holistic interventions for disadvantaged children. The problems and potential solutions are beyond the scope of practicing pediatricians, but the community development sector stands ready to engage in shared efforts to improve the health and development of our most at-risk children.

San Francisco children living in redeveloped public housing used acute services less than children in older public housing.

Understanding the links between housing and health is increasingly important. Poor housing quality is a predictor of poor health and developmental problems in low-income children. We examined associations between public housing type and recurrent pediatric emergency and urgent care hospital visits. Children ages 0-18 with public insurance who sought emergency care from any of three large medical systems in San Francisco were categorized by whether they lived in public housing redeveloped through the federal HOPE VI program, nonredeveloped public housing, or nonpublic housing in a census tract that also contained public housing. After we adjusted for potential confounding characteristics, we found that children living in nonredeveloped public housing were 39 percent more likely to have one or more repeat visits within one year for acute health care services unrelated to the initial visit, compared to children who lived in redeveloped HOPE VI housing. We observed no differences in repeat visits between children in redeveloped HOPE VI housing and those in nonpublic housing. These findings support the continued redevelopment of public housing as a means of both improving the health of vulnerable high-risk children from low-income neighborhoods and reducing health care costs.

A framework to extend community development measurement to health and well-being.

Measurement can help community development and health practitioners align and optimize their investments and leverage additional resources to achieve shared goals. However, there is no clear guidance for reconciling the established systems for measuring community development activities and outputs-such as housing units built, jobs created, and people served-with the outcomes and impacts of health. We therefore reviewed community development measurement systems-encompassing assessment, monitoring, evaluation, and standards-and identified strategies for using those systems to support health in community development decision making. We highlight promising innovations by organizations such as the Reinvestment Fund and NeighborWorks America and place these in an ecosystem framework to illustrate opportunities for shared measurement. We then discuss policies and processes to build the ecosystem's infrastructure, balance stakeholders' priorities within the ecosystem, and use it to drive investments in health.