Neighbourhood-level socioeconomic status and prevalence of teacher-reported health disorders among Canadian kindergarten children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The evidence on the association between neighborhood-level socioeconomic status (SES) and health disorders in young children is scarce. This study examined the prevalence of health disorders in Canadian kindergarten (5–6 years old) children in relation to neighborhood SES in 12/13 Canadian jurisdictions. Methods Data on child development at school entry for an eligible 1,372,980 children out of the total population of 1,435,428 children from 2004 to 2020, collected using the Early Development Instrument (EDI), were linked with neighborhood sociodemographic data from the 2006 Canadian Census and the 2005 Taxfiler for 2,058 neighborhoods. We examined the relationship using linear regressions. Children’s HD included special needs, functional impairments limiting a child’s ability to participate in classroom activities, and diagnosed conditions. Results The neighborhood prevalence of health disorders across Canada ranged from 1.8 to 46.6%, with a national average of 17.3%. The combined prevalence of health disorders was 16.4%, as 225,711 children were identified as having at least one health disorder. Results of an unadjusted linear regression showed a significant association between neighborhood-level SES and prevalence of health disorders (F(1, 2051) = 433.28, p < 0.001), with an R2 of 0.17. When province was added to the model, the R2 increased to 0.40 (F(12, 2040) = 115.26, p < 0.001). The association was strongest in Newfoundland & Labrador and weakest in Ontario. Conclusion Our study demonstrated that the prevalence of health disorders among kindergarten children was higher in lower SES neighborhoods and varied by jurisdiction in Canada, which has implications for practice and resource allocation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".