4.7 Article

Changes in social behavioral developmental risks in preschool children after the first COVID-19 wave: a prospective longitudinal cohort study

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-32877-x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social-emotional developmental risks (SE-DR) of preschool children was studied. The findings showed a decrease in SE-DR among preschoolers after the first wave of the pandemic. However, the study only examined short-term effects and further research is needed to investigate the long-term impact of the pandemic on preschoolers' SE-DR.
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social-emotional developmental risks (SE-DR) of preschool children is largely unknown. Therefore, the aim of this prospective longitudinal dynamic cohort study was to assess changes in preschoolers' SE-DR from before the pandemic to after the first COVID-19 wave. SE-DR were assessed annually with the instrument Dortmund Developmental Screening for Preschools (DESK). Longitudinal DESK data from 3- to 4-year-old children who participated both in survey wave (SW) three (DESK-SW3, 2019) and SW four (DESK-SW4, 2020) from August 1 to November 30 were used, respectively. Additionally, data from previous pre-pandemic SW were analyzed to contextualize the observed changes (SW1: 2017; SW2: 2018). A total of N=786 children were included in the analysis. In the pre-pandemic DESK-SW3, the proportion of children with SE-DR was 18.2%, whereas in DESK-SW4 after the first COVID-19 wave, the proportion decreased to 12.4% (p=0.001). Thus, the prevalence rate ratio (PRR) was 0.68. Compared to data from previous SW (SW1-SW2: PRR=0.88; SW2-SW3: PRR=0.82), this result represents a notable improvement. However, only short-term effects were described, and the study region had one of the highest preschool return rates in Germany. Further studies are needed to examine long-term effects of the pandemic on preschoolers' SE-DR.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据