Do television and electronic games predict children's psychosocial adjustment? Longitudinal research using the UK Millennium Cohort Study

Background: Screen entertainment for young children has been associated with several aspects of psychosocial adjustment. Most research is from North America and focuses on television. Few longitudinal studies have compared the effects of TV and electronic games, or have investigated gender differences. Purpose: To explore how time watching TV and playing electronic games at age 5 years each predicts change in psychosocial adjustment in a representative sample of 7 year-olds from the UK. Methods: Typical daily hours viewing television and playing electronic games at age 5 years were reported by mothers of 11 014 children from the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Conduct problems, emotional symptoms, peer relationship problems, hyperactivity/inattention and prosocial behaviour were reported by mothers using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Change in adjustment from age 5 years to 7 years was regressed on screen exposures; adjusting for family characteristics and functioning, and child characteristics. Results: Watching TV for 3 h or more at 5 years predicted a 0.13 point increase (95% CI 0.03 to 0.24) in conduct problems by 7 years, compared with watching for under an hour, but playing electronic games was not associated with conduct problems. No associations were found between either type of screen time and emotional symptoms, hyperactivity/inattention, peer relationship problems or prosocial behaviour. There was no evidence of gender differences in the effect of screen time. Conclusions: TV but not electronic games predicted a small increase in conduct problems. Screen time did not predict other aspects of psychosocial adjustment. Further work is required to establish causal mechanisms

Impact of a theoretically based sex education programme (SHARE) delivered by teachers on NHS registered conceptions and terminations: final results of cluster randomised trial

<b>Objective</b>: To assess the impact of a theoretically based sex education programme (SHARE) delivered by teachers compared with conventional education in terms of conceptions and terminations registered by the NHS. Design Follow-up of cluster randomised trial 4.5 years after intervention. <b>Setting</b>: NHS records of women who had attended 25 secondary schools in east Scotland. <b>Participants</b>: 4196 women (99.5% of those eligible). <b>Intervention</b>: SHARE programme (intervention group) v existing sex education (control group). <b>Main outcome measure</b>: NHS recorded conceptions and terminations for the achieved sample linked at age 20. <b>Results</b>: In an "intention to treat" analysis there were no significant differences between the groups in registered conceptions per 1000 pupils (300 SHARE v 274 control; difference 26, 95% confidence interval –33 to 86) and terminations per 1000 pupils (127 v 112; difference 15, –13 to 42) between ages 16 and 20. <b>Conclusions</b>: This specially designed sex education programme did not reduce conceptions or terminations by age 20 compared with conventional provision. The lack of effect was not due to quality of delivery. Enhancing teacher led school sex education beyond conventional provision in eastern Scotland is unlikely to reduce terminations in teenagers

Extent of regretted sexual intercourse among young teenagers in Scotland: a cross sectional survey

No abstract available

Who are America's Poor Children? The Official Story

Over 15 million American children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, which is $22,050 a year for a family of four. The number of children living in poverty increased by 33 percent between 2000 and 2009. There are 3.8 million more children living in poverty today than in 2000. Not only are these numbers troubling, the official poverty measure tells only part of the story. Research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to make ends meet. Children living in families with incomes below this level — for 2010,$44,100 for a family of four — are referred to as low income. Forty-two percent of the nation‘s children — more than 31 million in 2009 — live in low-income families. Nonetheless, eligibility for many public benefits is based on the official poverty measure. This fact sheet describes some of the characteristics of American children who are considered poor by the official standard

Basic Facts About Low-income Children, 2009: Children Under Age 18

Children represent 25 percent of the population. Yet, they comprise 36 percent of all people in poverty. Among children, 42 percent live in low-income families and approximately one in every five live in poor families. Winding up in a low-income or poor family does not happen by chance. There are significant factors related to children's experiences with economic insecurity, such as race/ethnicity and parents' education and employment. This fact sheet describes the demographic, socio-economic, and geographic characteristics of children and their parents — highlighting the important factors that appear to distinguish low-income and poor children from their less disadvantaged counterparts

Who are America's Poor Children? The Official Story

Over 15 million American children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, which is $22,050 a year for a family of four. The number of children living in poverty increased by 33 percent between 2000 and 2009. There are 3.8 million more children living in poverty today than in 2000. Not only are these numbers troubling, the official poverty measure tells only part of the story. Research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to make ends meet. Children living in families with incomes below this level — for 2010,$44,100 for a family of four — are referred to as low income. Forty-two percent of the nation‘s children — more than 31 million in 2009 — live in low-income families. Nonetheless, eligibility for many public benefits is based on the official poverty measure. This fact sheet describes some of the characteristics of American children who are considered poor by the official standard

Basic Facts About Low-income Children, 2008: Children Under Age 3

Children represent 25 percent of the population. Yet, 41 percent of all children live in low-income families and nearly one in every five live in poor families. Our very youngest children, infants and toddlers under age 3, appear to be particularly vulnerable with 44 percent living in low-income and 22 percent living in poor families. Winding up in a low-income or poor family does not happen by chance. There are significant factors related to children's experiences with economic insecurity, such as race/ethnicity and parents' education and employment. This fact sheet describes the demographic, socio-economic, and geographic characteristics of infants and toddlers and their parents — highlighting the important factors that appear to distinguish low-income and poor children in this age group from their less disadvantaged counterparts

Poor Children by Parents' Nativity: What Do We Know?

Immigration in the United States has held a longstanding and transformative role in shaping the country's social and economic landscape. State and local policies have, likewise, responded to the changing presence and composition of immigrants in American society. Yet, significant gaps in policies that address the unique experience of children in immigrant families still remain. As the number of children of immigrant parents increases, policies that meet their needs in areas such as education, health care, and economic security will become necessary. Currently, 17.2 million children residing in the U.S. have a parent who is foreign-born and 4.2 million children of immigrant parents are poor. High poverty rates among children of immigrant parents, coupled with unique social and economic challenges, make them particularly disadvantaged when compared with children of native-born parents. This poses a significant policy challenge, as poverty and other material hardships can have deleterious effects on a child's long-term health and well-being. More importantly, as this brief suggests, children of immigrant parents experience poverty that is different from poor children of native-born parents. For example, poor children of immigrant parents are more likely than their native-born counterparts to live in households where at least one parent works full-time, year-round. Moreover, poor children of immigrant families are less likely to receive food stamps than poor children of native-born parents. These findings suggest that child poverty in immigrant families is not necessarily linked to joblessness; rather, it is more closely connected to low-wage work and barriers to valuable work supports. Examining the landscape of poverty among children of immigrant parents will help to identify policy interventions that support healthy development and long-term economic security. Research suggests that children not only differ by the nativity of their parents (native- versus foreign-born), but that children of immigrant parents are themselves a diverse population. Studies show that duration of stay within the U.S. plays a critical role in determining long-term health well-being among children of immigrant parents. This brief takes into consideration the diversity among children of foreign- born parents by not only considering whether parents were born in the U.S. or abroad, but by also considering how long foreign-born parents have resided in the U.S. This is an important distinction when examining differences among children by parents' nativity. Thus, the purpose of this brief is to examine differences among children of native-born parents, children of recent immigrant families, and children of established immigrant families across a range of socio-demographic characteristics. Promoting positive outcomes for young children in immigrant families requires a deeper understanding of the population itself. To this end, the brief provides a more nuanced look at poor children living with immigrant parents by expanding the definition of the immigrant experience to include not only parents' nativity but also their duration of stay in the U.S

Basic Facts About Low-income Children, 2009: Children Under Age 3

Children represent 25 percent of the population. Yet, they comprise 36 percent of all people in poverty. Among children, 42 percent live in low-income families and nearly one in every five live in poor families. Our very youngest children, infants and toddlers under age 3, appear to be particularly vulnerable with 46 percent living in low-income and 24 percent living in poor families. Winding up in a low-income or poor family does not happen by chance. There are significant factors related to children's experiences with economic insecurity, such as race/ethnicity and parents' education and employment. This fact sheet describes the demographic, socio-economic, and geographic characteristics of infants and toddlers and their parents — highlighting the important factors that appear to distinguish low-income and poor children in this age group from their less disadvantaged counterparts

Basic Facts About Low-income Children, 2008: Children Aged 6-11

Children represent 25 percent of the population. Yet, 41 percent of all children live in low-income families and nearly one in every five live in poor families. Our very youngest children, infants and toddlers under age 3, appear to be particularly vulnerable with 44 percent living in low-income and 22 percent living in poor families. Winding up in a low-income or poor family does not happen by chance. There are significant factors related to children's experiences with economic insecurity, such as race/ethnicity and parents' education and employment. This fact sheet describes the demographic, socio-economic, and geographic characteristics of infants and toddlers and their parents — highlighting the important factors that appear to distinguish low-income and poor children in this age group from their less disadvantaged counterparts