4.0 Article

Early Childhood Intervention in South Africa in Relation to the Developmental Systems Model

期刊

INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN
卷 25, 期 4, 页码 334-345

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/IYC.0b013e3182673e12

关键词

developmental systems model; early intervention; HIV/AIDS; poverty; South Africa

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As highlighted in recent series in The Lancet (2007, 2011), children from low and middle income countries are more likely to be adversely affected by early biological and psychosocial experiences that have their origins in environments characterized by poverty, violence, nutritional deficiencies, HIV infections, substance abuse, and inadequate learning opportunities. Due in part to discriminatory legacies of the past, these risks are all still highly prevalent in South Africa even after almost 20 years of democracy, creating a situation where a significant number of young children grow up at risk for developmental delay in comparison with those born with established risk. Thus, in a country where resources are scarce and where early intervention starts too late and ends too early for most children, it is vital that protective factors at various levels of the ecology be mobilized at the earliest opportunity to prevent the accumulation of risk factors as well as balance inequalities where risks are already established. Using Guralnick's developmental systems model as a framework, this article first reviews the current situation of young children in South Africa by focusing on policies, programs, and service provisioning that provide the impetus for early childhood intervention. On the basis of the model, its overarching framework, as well as typical case studies encountered in this context, the authors propose improvements toward a more cohesive and coordinated early intervention system in this country by highlighting efforts at advancing screening and referral, interdisciplinary assessment, and family-focused community models of intervention.

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

4.0
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