Impact of Early Childhood Home Environment on Development: Poverty, Education, Depression, Study notes of Cognitive Development

Download Impact of Early Childhood Home Environment on Development: Poverty, Education, Depression and more Study notes Cognitive Development in PDF only on Docsity! A child’s early home environment has long-term effects on development. A child’s early home environment has a profound effect on his well-being. Beginning in infancy, a problematic home environment can disrupt the brain’s stress response system, reduce the quality of caregiving a child receives, and interfere with healthy development.1 Research has linked negative home environments during children’s first three years with a host of developmental problems, including poorer language development by age three. later behavior problems. deficits in school readiness. aggression, anxiety and depression. impaired cognitive development at age three.2-4 Longer-term effects have also been documented: A child’s early home envi- ronment and the skills he learns in the first three years have been linked to high school graduation. teen parenthood. adult employment and earnings.5,6 44 Brain imaging research suggests that growing up in a disadvantaged environment causes the brain to develop differently.7 For example, liv- ing in an environment affected by chaos and poverty can lead to changes in the brain’s stress system that increase a child’s vulnerability to chronic diseases later in life.8 Studies of very young children have identified distinctive patterns of brain activity associated with family income and socioeconomic status, especially in brain areas related to social and emotional development, language ability, and learning and memory.9-11 The home environment can even affect a child’s brain development. A risk factor is a condition that is statistically associated with a given outcome. For example, children who grow up poor are more likely than other children to drop out of high school. Poverty, then, is a risk factor for high school dropout. Not all poor children will drop out of high school, of course. They are said to be at risk because as a group they have a higher incidence of dropout. Research has identified specific aspects of a child’s environment that are associated with later outcomes. Commonly studied risk factors include poverty/income, maternal depression, and low maternal education. They are strong predictors of later outcomes including academic performance, cognitive development, and social and emotional well-being.12-14 Risk factors like these can affect children even in the first years of life. Early risk is associated with later behavioral and academic outcomes. For example, risk exposure during infancy appears to be more detrimental for children’s school readiness than later exposure.13,14 What is a risk factor ? The Conditions Affecting Neurocognitive Development and Learning in Early Childhood (CANDLE) is an ongoing study of approximate- ly 1,500 Shelby County women and their young children. Mothers enroll in their 2nd trimester and participate until their children are three years old. The CANDLE study collects infor- mation on numerous aspects of development, including health, nutrition, cognition function- ing, and psychosocial well-being. Overall, CANDLE participants are similar to Shelby County mothers as a whole, increas- ing the likelihood that trends seen among the CANDLE group can be generalized to expectant mothers throughout Shelby County. This chap- ter uses CANDLE data to examine the presence of three well-known risk factors—low-income, low maternal education, and maternal depres- sion—among our community’s young children.15 The CANDLE Study provides valuable data about our community’s children. 45 FIGURE 3: Percent of CANDLE Mothers at Risk for Depression, 4 Weeks and 12 Months. Source: Tylavsky F, Atkins JK, Atkins R, Bush A, et al. Conditions Affecting Neurocogni- tive Development and Learning in Early Child- hood. 2012. Unpub- lished raw data. Maternal postpartum depression is the most common medical complication of childbearing. Although most women experience some brief depression-like symptoms in the first week or two after giving birth, national research shows that 10 to 15 percent of new mothers are af- flicted by major depression—often lasting six months or longer.27-29 Common symptoms of postnatal depression include sleep disturbances, feelings of guilt, and loss of interest in daily activities. Not surprising- ly, then, new mothers who suffer from untreated depression are unlikely to be able to provide the positive experiences their infants need. On average, depressed mothers spend less time touching and talking to their babies, and their interactions tend to be more negative. Studies repeatedly show that depression is associated with parenting styles that are either understimu- lating or overstimulating.27,28 If left untreated, maternal depression in a child’s first years can have negative effects on cognitive development, behavior, and school readiness.30 There appear to be biological effects as well: recent research has discovered distinct patterns of brain activity and stress hormone levels in children of depressed mothers.27 Mothers in the CANDLE study complete a brief assessment to screen for possible depression at 4 weeks after birth and again at 12 months. While not an actual diagnosis, an At Risk score indi- cates that a mother is likely to be suffering from postpartum depression and that further assess- ment is recommended. Maternal depression is a grave threat to children’s healthy development. At 4 weeks, 11.2 percent of all mothers scored At Risk. At 12 months, 10.7 percent scored At Risk.22 17.0% 51.9% 6.1% 25.1% Less than High School GED or High School Diploma Technical School College Degree or More 11.2% 10.7% 10.4% 10.5% 10.6% 10.7% 10.8% 10.9% 11.0% 11.1% 11.2% 11.3% 4 Week Home Visit 12 Month Clinic Visit Pe rc en t 48 Because CANDLE participants, as a group, are roughly representative of the local population, we can reasonably assume that similar patterns would be found among expectant mothers throughout Memphis and Shelby County.15 Although these preliminary findings do not allow us to make specific projec- tions or draw hard conclusions, it is clear that economic hardship, low edu- cational attainment, and maternal depression are a widespread threat to our children’s healthy development. The importance of children’s early environments means that reducing and eliminating later gaps in achievement must begin early in life. Effective inter- ventions need to start long before children reach kindergarten—the earlier, the better. Policy efforts to reduce economic hardship, promote education among parents of young children, and improve the identification and treatment of depression among new mothers are promising strategies for improving children’s early home environments. The CANDLE data show that many of our community’s families with young children are at risk. 49 References 1. Blair C, Granger DA, Willoughby M, et al. Salivary cortisol mediates effects of poverty and parenting on executive functions in early child- hood. Child Development. 2011; 82(6):1970-8. 2. Evans GW, Ricciuti HN, Hope S, et al. Crowding and cognitive development. The mediating role of maternal responsiveness among 36-month-old children. Environment and Behavior. 2010; 42(1): 135-148. 3. Trentacosta CJ, Hyde, LW, Shaw DS, et al. The relations among cumulative risk, parenting, and behavior problems during early childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2008; 49: 1211-1219. 4. Vernon-Feagans L, Garrett-Peters P, Wil- loughby M, et al. Chaos, poverty, and parenting: Predictors of early language development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2011 (in press). 5. Duncan GJ, Ziol-Guest KM, Kalil A. Early childhood poverty and adult attainment, behav- ior, and health. Child Development. 2010; 81: 306–325. 6. Pungello EP, Kainz K, Burchinal M, et al. Early educational intervention, early cumulative risk, and the early home environment as predic- tors of young adult outcomes within a high-risk sample. Child Development. 2010; 81: 410-426. 7. Gianaros PJ. Socioeconomic health dis- parities: A health neuroscience and lifecourse perspective. Psychological Science Agenda. 2011; 25(1). 8. Miller GE, Chen E, Fok AK, et al. Low early-life social class leaves a biological residue manifested by decreased glucocorticoid and increased proinflammatory signaling. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 2009; 106: 14716-14721. 9. Hanson JL, Chandra A, Wolfe BL, et al. Association between income and the hippocam- pus. PLoS ONE. 2011; 6(5): e18712. 10. Noble KG, Houston SM, Kan E, et al. Neural correlates of socioeconomic status in the developing human brain. Developmental Science. 2012; in press, 1–12. 11. Raizada RD, Richards TL, Meltzoff A, et al. Socioeconomic status predicts hemispheric specialisation of the left inferior frontal gyrus in young children. NeuroImage. 2008; 40(3): 1392–1401. 12. Burchinal M, Roberts JE, Zeisel SA, et al. Social risk and protective child, parenting, and child care factors in early elementary school years. Parenting: Science and Practice. 2006; 6(1): 79-113. 13. Mistry RS, et al. Family and social risk, and parental investments during the early childhood years as predictors of low-income children’s school readiness outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2010; 25: 432–449. 14. Sektan M, McClelland MM, Acock A, et al. Relations between early family risk, chil- dren’s behavioural regulation, and academic achievement. Early Child Research Quarterly. 2010; 25: 464-479. 15. Shih R, Chandra A, Griffin BA, et al. Birth outcomes in the Conditions Affecting Neurocogni- tive Development and Learning in Early Childhood (CANDLE) Study. 2012 (Pending publication). 16. Lanza ST, et al. Modeling multiple risks dur- ing infancy to predict quality of the caregiving environment: contributions of a person-centered approach. Infant Behavior & Development. 2011; 34: 390-406. 50