Role of Pediatricians, Pediatric Associations, and Academic Departments in Ensuring Optimal Early Childhood Development Globally: Position Paper of the International Pediatric Association
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Early childhood (birth-8 years), particularly the first 3 years, is the most critical time in development because of the highly sensitive developing brain. Providing appropriate developmental care (i.e., nurturing care, as defined by the World Health Organization [WHO]) during early childhood is key to ensuring a child's holistic development. Pediatricians are expected to play a critical role in supporting early childhood development (ECD) through providing developmental services such as developmental monitoring, anticipatory guidance, screening, and referral to medical and/or community-based services when delay is identified. Pediatricians are also expected to serve as advocates within their clinics and communities for improved delivery of ECD services, such as advocating for increasing funding for ECD initiatives, increasing insurance coverage of ECD services, and working to increase other pediatricians' awareness of the principles of ECD and how to deliver developmental services. However, this does not always occur. Typically, pediatricians' training and practice emphasizes treating disease rather than enhancing ECD. Pediatricians are further hindered by a lack of uniformity across nations in guidelines for developmental monitoring and screening. In this article, we present the vision of the International Pediatric Association (IPA) of the roles that pediatricians, academic departments, medical training programs, and pediatric associations should fulfill to help support ECD, including raising ECD to higher levels of priority in routine pediatric care. First, we present the challenges that face these goals in supporting ECD. We then propose, with supportive literature, strategies and resources to overcome these challenges in collaboration with local and international stakeholders, including the IPA, the WHO, UNICEF, and the World Bank.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".