Rural‐Urban Differences in Positive Childhood Experiences Across a National Sample

Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of positive childhood experience (PCE) and adverse childhood experience (ACE) exposures in 31 states plus the District of Columbia and to estimate exposure differences between rural and urban children. Methods A cross‐sectional study wa...

Celý popis

Uložené v:
Podrobná bibliografia
Vydané v:The Journal of rural health Ročník 37; číslo 3; s. 495 - 503
Hlavní autori: Crouch, Elizabeth, Radcliff, Elizabeth, Merrell, Melinda A., Bennett, Kevin J.
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:English
Vydavateľské údaje: Washington Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.06.2021
Predmet:
Adverse childhood experiences
Adversity
Bivariate analysis
Childhood
Childhood experiences
Childhood factors
Children
Children & youth
Childrens health
Community
Community schools
Cross-sectional studies
descriptive statistics
District of Columbia
Families & family life
health disparities
issues and policy
national surveys
Policy making
Polls & surveys
positive childhood experiences
Regression analysis
Regression models
Residence
Respondents
Rural areas
rural health
Rural health care
Rural urban differences
Sociodemographics
stakeholders
Statistical analysis
Statistics
District of Columbia
ISSN:0890-765X, 1748-0361, 1748-0361
On-line prístup:Získať plný text
Tagy: Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
Popis
Shrnutí:Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of positive childhood experience (PCE) and adverse childhood experience (ACE) exposures in 31 states plus the District of Columbia and to estimate exposure differences between rural and urban children. Methods A cross‐sectional study was conducted with a sample of 19,251 respondents from the 2017‐2018 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH), a nationally representative sample of US children. Sociodemographic information, residence, and PCE and ACE responses were utilized. To calculate frequencies, proportions, and unadjusted associations for each variable, descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were used. Multivariable regression models were used to examine the association between residence and PCEs that showed significance in bivariate analyses. Findings In adjusted analyses of PCEs, there was no significant difference between rural and urban children for after‐school activities. However, rural children were more likely to volunteer in the community, school, or church than were urban children (aOR 1.32; 95% CI: 1.14‐1.54). Rural children also had greater odds of having a mentor for advice or guidance, compared to urban children (aOR 1.8; 95% CI: 1.40‐2.52). Conclusions An examination of both PCEs and ACEs provides policy makers, program developers, and other stakeholders the opportunity to determine needs of rural children and where to target interventions. Furthering the understanding of PCEs and ACEs is important to bring individuals, families, and communities together to both address childhood adversity and utilize existing family and community‐level assets.
Bibliografia:The authors have no financial relationships or conflicts of interest relevant to this article.
Disclosures
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0890-765X
1748-0361
1748-0361
DOI:10.1111/jrh.12493