19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Role of contextual and compositional characteristics of schools for health inequalities in childhood and adolescence: a scoping review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To synthesise the evidence on the role of compositional or contextual characteristics of schools in the association between students' socioeconomic position and their health in primary and secondary education in developed economies.

          Design

          Scoping review. We included studies examining the role of at least one school or class characteristic on students’ health inequalities and was published since 1 January 2000, in English or German. We searched PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and Education Resources Information Center. We provided a narrative synthesis and an overview of findings. School characteristics were grouped into five broad categories: school composition, school climate, school policies and organisation, food environment and facilities.

          Results

          Of 8520 records identified, 26 studies were included. Twelve studies found a moderating and 3 a mediating effect. The strongest evidence came from studies examining the moderating effect of school composition, that is, the negative impact of a low individual socioeconomic position on mental health and well-being was aggravated by a low average socioeconomic position of schools. Evidence concerning the role of school climate, school stratification (eg, performance base tracking) and sponsorship, food environment and sport facilities and equipment was generally weak or very weak and mostly based on singular findings. Overall, favourable meso-level characteristics mitigated the negative impact of low individual socioeconomic position on health outcomes.

          Conclusions

          School characteristics affect health inequalities in children and adolescents to some degree, but future research is necessary to strengthen the existing evidence and address under-represented aspects in school characteristics and health outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references91

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

            Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Book: not found

              The Ecology of Human Development : Experiments by Nature and Design

              <p>Here is a book that challenges the very basis of the way psychologists have studied child development. According to Urie Bronfenbrenner, one of the world’s foremost developmental psychologists, laboratory studies of the child’s behavior sacrifice too much in order to gain experimental control and analytic rigor. Laboratory observations, he argues, too often lead to “the science of the strange behavior of children in strange situations with strange adults for the briefest possible periods of time.” To understand the way children actually develop, Bronfenbrenner believes that it will be necessary to observe their behavior in natural settings, while they are interacting with familiar adults over prolonged periods of time.<br><br>This book offers an important blueprint for constructing such a new and ecologically valid psychology of development. The blueprint includes a complete conceptual framework for analysing the layers of the environment that have a formative influence on the child. This framework is applied to a variety of settings in which children commonly develop, ranging from the pediatric ward to daycare, school, and various family configurations. The result is a rich set of hypotheses about the developmental consequences of various types of environments. Where current research bears on these hypotheses, Bronfenbrenner marshals the data to show how an ecological theory can be tested. Where no relevant data exist, he suggests new and interesting ecological experiments that might be undertaken to resolve current unknowns.<br><br>Bronfenbrenner’s groundbreaking program for reform in developmental psychology is certain to be controversial. His argument flies in the face of standard psychological procedures and challenges psychology to become more relevant to the ways in which children actually develop. It is a challenge psychology can ill-afford to ignore.</p>
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2022
                1 February 2022
                : 12
                : 2
                : e052925
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentInstitute of Medical Sociology, Medical Faculty , Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg , Halle (Saale), Germany
                [2 ]departmentDepartment of Public Health , Brandenburg University of Technology , Senftenberg, Germany
                [3 ]departmentMannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine , Heidelberg University , Mannheim, Germany
                [4 ]departmentInstitute of Medical Sociology, Centre for Health and Society, Medical Faculty , Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf , Düsseldorf, Germany
                [5 ]departmentChair of Health Economics , Technical University of Munich , München, Germany
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Max Herke; max.herke@ 123456medizin.uni-halle.de
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6425-4366
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3245-5176
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0347-1900
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0378-0757
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4600-0183
                Article
                bmjopen-2021-052925
                10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052925
                8808395
                35105578
                ca8f4ae0-642c-45f0-b184-9c55b4d9a1ec
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 03 May 2021
                : 29 November 2021
                Funding
                Funded by: German Research Foundation (DFG);
                Award ID: 384210238
                Award ID: FOR2723
                Award ID: RI2467/8-1
                Award ID: RI2467/9-1
                Categories
                Public Health
                1506
                1724
                Original research
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                health policy,public health,community child health
                Medicine
                health policy, public health, community child health

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                6
                0
                6
                0
                Smart Citations
                6
                0
                6
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content191

                Cited by3

                Most referenced authors1,293