Inequalities in child development at school entry: A repeated cross-sectional analysis of the Australian Early Development Census 2009-2018

Luke R Collier; Tess Gregory; Yasmin Harman-Smith; Angela Gialamas; Sally A Brinkman

doi:10.1016/j.lanwpc.2020.100057

Inequalities in child development at school entry: A repeated cross-sectional analysis of the Australian Early Development Census 2009-2018

Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2020 Nov 13:4:100057. doi: 10.1016/j.lanwpc.2020.100057. eCollection 2020 Nov.

Authors

Luke R Collier^{1

2}, Tess Gregory^{1

2}, Yasmin Harman-Smith^{1

2}, Angela Gialamas², Sally A Brinkman^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Telethon Kids Institute, The University of Western Australia, Level 7, 31 Flinders St., Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
² School of Public Health, The University of Adelaide, Level 9, Adelaide Health And Medical Science Building, 57 North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia.

Abstract

Background: Australia is the only developed country to consistently undertake a developmental census of its children nationwide. The repeated collection of the Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) has provided an unprecedented opportunity to examine the prevalence of developmental vulnerability across Australia's states and territories, the socio-economic distribution of developmental vulnerability across jurisdictions, and how these distributions might have changed over time.

Methods: This study employed multivariable logistic regressions to estimate the probability of developmental vulnerability within each jurisdiction and AEDC collection year (2009 to 2018), adjusting for jurisdictional differences in socio-demographic characteristics. To explore socio-economic inequalities in child development, adjusted slope index of inequality (SII) models were utilised.

Findings: The results of this study found reductions in the adjusted prevalence of developmental vulnerability over time in Western Australia (26% to 20%) and Queensland (30% to 25%), with an increase observed in the Australian Capital Territory (27% to 30%). Analysis also indicated an increase in socio-economic inequalities over time in the Northern Territory (+12%), the Australian Capital Territory (+6%) and Tasmania (+4%). Sensitivity analysis found these effects to be robust with an alternative measure of socio-economic position.

Interpretation: There is considerable variation in the prevalence and socio-economic inequalities in developmental vulnerability across Australia's jurisdictions. Future research should explore the policy drivers in early childhood education and health contributing to the findings of this study, with a particular focus on jurisdictions where there have been notable changes in developmental vulnerability and socio-economic inequality over time.

Funding: Analyses were funded under research contract by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment. Prof Brinkman is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council fellowship, APP1160185.

Keywords: Developmental vulnerability; Jurisdictional; Population monitoring; School readiness; Socio-economic inequality.