Childcare is an essential part of early life environment that has a significant influence on lifelong physical and mental health. This study aimed to examine the relationship between development, growth and frequency of illness in different types of care.
This cross-sectional study recruited 177 children aged 30–36 months and their caregivers. Of these 66 were being cared for at home and 111 were attending out-of-home day-care facilities. An interview form, growth measurement and the Denver Developmental Screening Test II were collected. The association between child developmental, growth and illness variables was analyzed with Chi-square, Fisher's exact and Mann–Whitney U tests.
This study found that the development and growth results did not show statistically significant differences between the home-care and day-care groups. The number of minor illnesses was significantly lower in home-care children than in day-care children (OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.15-0.72).
This study indicated that the risk of infection is increased in the children attending day care. Provision of a healthy and safe childcare environment needs to be an essential health promotion strategy to improve family and child well-being.
As the number of women's participation in the labor market has increased rapidly over the past decades, so did the number of children in nonparental care. The study findings reflect that the development of a day-care center for children was unclear, whereas the risk of infection was increased. Therefore, provision of a healthy and safe childcare environment needs to be an essential health promotion strategy to improve family and child well-being.
Limtrakul, D., Ongprasert, K., Ayood, P., Sapbamrer, R. and Siviroj, P. (2020), "A comparison of child development, growth and illness in home-care and day-care center settings", Journal of Health Research, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHR-08-2019-0193Download as .RIS
Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © Darunnee Limtrakul, Krongporn Ongprasert, Pisittawoot Ayood, Ratana Sapbamrer and Penprapa Siviroj
Published in the Journal of Health Research. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this license may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
As stated in many cross-culture reports, the number of women participating in the labor market has increased rapidly over the past decades and this coincides with the increased number of children in nonparental care [1–4]. In Thailand, a study by the Office of the Permanent Secretary for the Ministry of Education in 2017 showed that almost 90% of children under three years old were in some form of nonparental care. There are many different types of care. Some consist of in-home care, where a relative or other adult comes to the child's home; childcare homes, where an adult or adults provide care in their own homes; and childcare centers, where children receive care from adults at a nonhome location, such as a traditional day-care center .
As research has shown, the brain is more susceptible to the experiences of the first years of life. Early life exposures influence lifelong physical and mental health that can be either beneficial or deleterious in their effects [5–7]. On the one hand, it is assumed that childcare centers provide stimulating environments, which offers the opportunity to meet other children, experience a variety of daily activities and be cared for by certified staff; on the other hand, childcare staff might not be able to devote adequate attention to each child. Bearing these issues in mind, many parents struggle to find the right option when arranging childcare. Finding the right environment has a significant influence on childhood experience and determines whether the childcare facility benefits the children or disrupts their health and development.
Previous studies found that children gain developmental benefits from childcare over the short and long term, particularly in the areas of language and social development [3, 8–11]. A longitudinal study carried out by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care, begun 1991, has shown that the children who attended childcare centers had better cognitive and language development skills . As regards social competence, children who spent time in childcare centers manifested more self-confidence, were more likely to use self-directed emotion regulation behaviors and exhibited less distress in new situations [12, 13]. However, stress is an important concern as the child needs to deal with novel situations, to relate to strange adults, an unfamiliar peer group and experience the fear of being away from parents. Many articles have reported that cortisol levels are higher in day-care children than in home-care children, which may be associated with emotional development and behavior. However, the relationship with long-term effects for the health and development of children is not conclusive [2, 14–16]. Some evidence has indicated that attending childcare centers can have negative health consequences. Children attending childcare centers experience a higher number of common communicable diseases, especially respiratory and gastrointestinal infections when compared with children who are cared for at home. For children younger than two years of age attending childcare centers, the longer the duration of time spent in childcare, and the greater the child–teacher ratios, the rates of illness correspondingly increase [17–21].
Although there are many studies about childcare type, it is still challenging for parents and healthcare providers to find reliable research-based information due to much of the previous research being focused on a specific problem. To resolve this issue, this research examined the overall issues that included how differences in childcare experiences are related to the development, growth and health of children in the same context. We also explored the main reasons for enrolling the child in a day-care program and the characteristics of their ideal arrangements.
Study design, procedure and participants
This investigation was a cross-sectional study. Data were gathered from children between 30 and 36 months of age and their parents who lived in Chiang Mai Province between November 2017 and July 2018. The children were grouped into two by type of childcare arrangement: care by a relative or a nonrelative in the child's own home (home-care children, n = 66) and supervision by someone at day-care centers that provide all-day programs (day-care center children, n = 111). The day-care center children were required to have attended the center continuously for at least six months.
The data around the following parameters were analyzed: caregiver and child demographic development, growth, experience and frequency of illness in the past two months, the main reasons for enrolling the child in a day-care program and the characteristics of their ideal arrangements. The study tools used were semistructured and open-ended questionnaires. The Denver Developmental Screening Test II (DDST) was used to screen children's development in four areas of functioning: fine-motor-adaptive, gross motor, personal–social and language skills [5, 6]. A subinvestigator, a nurse, who was trained and certified in the performance of the DDST, conducted all interviews, growth measurements and child developmental examinations. The growth chart used in our study was derived from the maternal and child health handbooks provided by the Ministry of Public Health of Thailand . For height and weight, we divided the height-for-age and weight-for-age into three groups: the 97th percentile (+2SD), under the 3rd percentile (–2SD) and the 3rd–97th percentile to represent the normal and abnormal groups.
All answers were coded and recorded in an electronic database by two investigators. The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) for Windows software application program version 22.0 was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics frequencies, means and standard deviations were used to describe sample characteristics and illness experiences and the child developmental examination and frequency of illness of the sample. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to assess the normality of distribution. The association between child developmental variables was analyzed with a Chi-square test. If the data were not showing a normal distribution, we used Fisher's exact and the Mann–Whitney U tests.
The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand (No.035/2017, January 25, 2017). The parents or guardians of all participants gave informed consent.
Demographic data of children and caregivers
Table 1 presents the demographic data of home-care children (n = 66) and day-care center children (n = 111). The mean age of the children was 30.6 + 1.35 months for home-care and 32 + 2.21 months for day-care center children. The mean age of children in the day-care center was significantly higher than those for home-care children (p < 0.001). As regards gender, 45.5% were male in the home-care group and 51.4% in the day-care center group. The primary caregivers were the mother (65.2% for home-care children and 53.2% for day-care center children), followed by grandparents (19.7% for home-care children and 23.4% for day-care center children), father (9.1% for home-care children and 15.3% for day-care center children) and others (6.1% for home-care children and 8.1% for day-care center children). The mean age of caregivers was 39.1 years for home-care children and 37.7 years for day-care center children. About 33 (51.6%) of the caregivers in the case of home-care children had an education level lower than graduation from high school, whereas 50 (46.3%) of the caregivers for day-care center children had an education level lower than high school graduation. Most caregivers came from a two-parent household (93.9% for home-care children and 82.9% for day-care center children). A two-parent household for home-care children was significantly higher than it was for day-care center children (p = 0.03). Enrollment ages for day-care centers were a minimum age of two months while the average age was 30 months.
Development and growth between home-care and day-care center children
A comparison of development and growth between home-care and day-care center children is shown in Table 2. Most children had a normal DDST result: no delay and a maximum of one caution item (77.3% of home-care children and 80.2% for day-care center children) followed by a suspect DDST result: two or more caution and/or one or more delay items (22.7% for home-care children and 19.8% for day-care center children). Most children had personal–social development in normal items (80.3% for home-care children and 84.7% for day-care center children), followed by caution items (19.7% for home-care children and 12.6% for day-care center children) and advanced items (0% for home-care children and 2.7% for day-care center children), respectively. Most children had fine-motor-adaptive development in normal items (69.7% for home-care children and 76.6% for day-care center children), followed by advanced items (19.7% for home-care children and 17.1% for day-care center children) and caution items (10.6% for home-care children and 6.3% for day-care center children). Most children had fine language development in normal items (54.5% for home-care children and 55% for day-care center children), followed by advanced items (24.2% for home-care children and 25.2% for day-care center children) and caution items (21.2% for home-care children and 19.8% for day-care center children). Most children had gross motor development in normal items (84.8% for home-care children and 78.4% for day-care center children), followed by advanced items (10.6% for home-care children and 12.6% for day-care center children) and caution items (4.5% for home-care children and 9% for day-care center children).
Regarding growth, most children had a weight between the 3rd and 97th percentile (93.9% for home-care children and 91% for day-care center children), followed by above 97th percentile (4.5% for home-care children and 5.4% for day-care center children) and below the 3rd percentile (1.5% for home-care children and 3.6% for day-care center children), respectively. Most children had a height between the 3rd and 97th (97% for home-care children and 95.5% for day-care center children), followed by below the 3rd percentile (3% for home-care children and 3.7% for day-care center children) and above the 97th percentile (0% for home-care children and 1.8% for day-care center children).
Illness experience between home-care and day-care center children
The comparison of experience and frequency of illness in the past two months between home-care and day-care center children is shown in Table 3. The results found that the total numbers of minor illnesses in the home-care child are lower than those in the day-care center child (OR = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.15–0.72). Minor illnesses caused by infection were very common among both sets of children, 71.2% and 88.3% reported illness episodes in home-care and day-care center children, respectively. The common cold was the most frequent minor illness in both groups. Other minor illnesses among home-care children included fever and tonsillitis, whereas diarrhea, fever and hand, foot and mouth disease were the second, third and fourth most common diseases in the day-care center child. Total numbers of serious illnesses and the causes of illness were no different between home-care and day-care center children (OR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.149–1.20). The first five serious illnesses causing hospital admission included the common cold, acute bronchitis, pneumonia, influenza and diarrhea.
Factors related to the child’s development growth and illness
Factors relating to development and illnesses are presented in Table 4. The results found that the mean age of the primary caregiver was associated with the normal item in fine motor development (p = 0.046) and the frequency of serious illnesses (p = 0.026). The relationship of the primary caregiver to the child was associated with the frequency of serious illness in the past two months. The results found that the total numbers of minor illnesses were lower among the mothers as primary caregivers group than the grandparents as primary caregivers group (OR = 0.28, 95% CI = 0.14–0.76). Other factors, including the education level of the major caregiver and household type, were not associated with development and numbers of illnesses.
We also collected data pertinent to the reason for the participants enrolling their child into childcare and the factors for choosing their childcare facility. The most popular reason for enrolling a child into childcare was the parent needing to work with no other family support available to take care of the child (64.5%). This reason was followed by the wish to enhance their child’s development (14.5%) and improve the child's social development (12.7%). The general factors for choosing the childcare facility were proximity to their home (45.9%), hygiene and cleanliness (17.1%) and safety and qualified day-care (10.8%) (Data not shown).
Over the past decades, changes in family formation patterns have been observed. The proportion of females in the labor force is increasing worldwide. The numbers have nearly doubled in just over 30 years, 34.3% of mothers with children under the age of 3 were working in 1975 compared to 61.8% in 2008 . This global phenomenon is reflected in an increasing number of child day-care center attendances [4,23–26]. Moreover, single-parent families are also increasing. Approximately 5–10% of children worldwide live in single-parent families. In Thailand, the number of single-parent families rose from 6.5% in 2001 to 8.3% in 2016 . Our results indicated that day-care center children were more likely to be from single-parent households than in the case of home-care children. There is also a substantial increase in the number of dual-earning couples, and this increase, along with the single-parent increase, has meant a higher demand for childcare with day-care centers now providing an essential service for many families.
Questions about the possible impact of childcare on the development and health of young children are of enormous interest both to parents and to health professionals. Our results showed no evidence of a relationship between childcare type and the developmental skills of the children in the four main areas of development: personal–social, fine motor, language and gross motor. Referring to the results of previous studies and links between day-care experience and child outcomes show mixed results. Typically, the studies have demonstrated significant positive effects on the development of children from disadvantaged families attending high-quality early childhood programs [3, 8, 26, 28]. Family background and quality of day care were not controlled in our study and that may have had an impact on our results. Many studies found a positive impact of day care on language development and cognitive development [3, 8, 11, 28–30].
The NICHD longitudinal study indicated that children who attended day-care centers had somewhat better cognitive and language development than children who experienced other nonmaternal childcare arrangements . This long-term study showed that children who experienced higher-quality early childcare displayed better vocabulary scores in the fifth grade than did children who experienced a lower quality of care . Conversely, a study by Stolarova et al.  showed that girls not attending day care before the age of two years exhibited a larger vocabulary size in comparison to all other children . As regards social development, some researchers found that attending childcare facilities in early childhood has positive effects [1, 26, 31]. Children in day-care centers were also more skilled with strangers and more autonomous of mothers in a laboratory playroom . One observational study found that the closeness of the teacher–child relationship in preschool childcare was related to social skills through the elementary school years. A possible explanation is that children with a positive early experience with someone other than their parents learn a pattern of interacting that expedites their relationships with a future caregiver . Many pieces of evidence are consistent in concluding that motor skills significantly improve with extended physical activity, but preschoolers’ physical activity levels are always low during center attendance [32–36]. However, there is little documentation regarding how childcare types interact with the motor skills of children, so the relationship between childcare exposure and the development of motor skills has not yet been concluded. In our study, the relationship between childcare exposure and motor skills was not observed; nevertheless, we found an association between higher primary caregiver age and the normal result of fine motor skills. Similarly, Comuk-Balci et al. found that higher maternal age, especially in female gender children older than 24 months, and higher maternal education correlated with an earlier accomplishment of fine motor skills . The consequence of higher parental age may involve greater intellectual levels and positive psychology in enhanced opportunities for the stimulation of the child.
The outcomes of the investigation into illnesses in this study are consistent with earlier studies in that day-care center children are at a higher risk of common infection [19, 21]. Moreover, our study showed the effect of the type of childcare on the severity of illnesses that have not been assessed in most previous articles. The results of our study indicated that the total number of minor illnesses that did not require hospital admission in day-care center children was significantly higher than in home-care children, whereas the incidence of serious illness that caused the child to be admitted to the hospital did not differ significantly between both groups. It is notable that the most common cause of serious illness in our study was the common cold, which is generally not considered to be a severe illness.
Like many similar studies, our results demonstrated that day-care attendance significantly increases the risk of respiratory and gastrointestinal tract infections, which are typically transmitted via airborne droplets, direct contact with secretions or feral–oral transmission [21, 38–40]. Good personal hygiene and a clean environment are essential to reduce the spread of infections in childcare settings. Children need to learn about and practice personal hygiene, such as consistently washing their hands and covering their mouths with a tissue or upper sleeve during coughing or sneezing. School policies should cover practical procedures for preventing the spread of infectious diseases, including cleaning of toys, diaper changing and food preparation. For example, toys that are contaminated by body fluids should be set aside until they are cleaned by hand with detergent, rinsed with water and air-dried. The soiled clothes should be stored in a sealed plastic bag and sent home with the child at the end of the day. A clear school protocol for children with common symptoms of childhood infection, which include fever, cough, runny nose or diarrhea, is essential. When children present with any of these symptoms, parents should keep their children home from school, or the teachers should call the parents to come and collect their children and take them home. The children need to be symptom-free for at least 24 h before returning to school. Immunization is a safe and effective intervention to reduce the transmission of infectious diseases. Therefore, policymakers should support the most up-to-date vaccination protocol for children and childcare staff. Furthermore, healthcare personnel should continuously support childcare services by providing health assessments and educate childcare staff to improve health and development outcomes [21, 38, 40, 41].
On the positive side, children who attended large day-care centers during the first three years of life had more frequent colds during the preschool years, but less frequent colds during their school years until reaching 13 years of age. Acquisition of immunity may develop earlier among children who participate in large day-care centers .
The use of our understanding of the relationship between child health and the type of day care, and knowing how parents make choices about childcare, is fundamental to developing effective services to promote the provision of high-quality care. Therefore, we also explored the main reasons for enrolling the child in a day-care program and the characteristics of their ideal arrangements. More than half of the participants sent their child to a day-care center because they needed to work and there was no other family support available to take care of their child. Only one-quarter of the parents expressed concern about the positive developmental influence of day-care centers. Not surprisingly, the ideal characteristics of the day-care centers related to issues regarding the convenience of a good location. Fewer than half of these parents considered hygiene, safety or the quality of day care as a primary choice.
There are many significant characteristics for day care cited in previous studies, which have examined issues around childcare choices such as quality of day care, the presence of caring caregivers and an environment where their children could learn. Factors affecting parents’ day-care choices depend on educational level, ethnicity and family role beliefs. However, there are many limitations regarding opportunities for childcare including family finances, inflexible work schedules and locations, especially for low-income families [42–46].
Therefore, the quality of a day-care center may not always be a priority if the day-care facility did not meet the financial constraints and availability for the families. Similar to our investigation, other studies found that the quality of day-care center is not the first concern. There is a need to ensure all children have the opportunity to attend high-quality day care rather than just the most convenient. Beyond improving the quality of childcare in identifying family needs, the application of quality improvement strategies is also necessary.
As a study limitation, the period that children attended day care was too short to show any association between childcare exposure and growth. Thus, there is an opportunity for future studies to extend the study period and investigate any impact on growth.
A day-care center provides an essential service to many families, and the demand continues to increase. From our results, the developmental benefits of a day-care center for children are unclear, whereas the risk of infection is increased. Therefore, the provision of a healthy and safe childcare environment needs to be an essential health promotion strategy to improve family and child well-being. Pediatricians and healthcare providers should help provide perspective on these issues, including the risks and benefits of childcare to assist parents in making arrangements for what is best for their children and families. These findings also provide valuable information about policy implications.
Demographic data of children and caregivers
|Parameters||Home-care children (n = 66)||Day-care children (n = 111)||p-value|
|Children||Age, month, mean + SD||30.6 + 1.35||32.0 + 2.21||<0.01a,**|
|Sex, n (%)|
|Male||30 (45.5)||57 (51.4)||0.49b|
|Female||36 (54.5)||54 (48.6)|
|Caregiver||Relationship of the primary caregiver to children, n (%)|
|Mother||43 (65.2)||59 (53.2)||0.43b|
|Grandparent||13 (19.7)||26 (23.4)|
|Father||6 (9.1)||17 (15.3)|
|Other||4 (6.1)||9 (8.1)|
|Age, year, mean + SD||39.1 + 12.65||37.7 + 12.33||0.55a|
|Major caregiver's level of education, n (%)|
|Lower than graduation from high school||33 (51.6)||50 (46.3)||0.50b|
|Graduated high school||31 (48.4)||58 (53.7)|
|Household type, n (%)|
|Two-parent household||62 (93.9%)||92 (82.9%)||0.03b,*|
|Single -parent household||4 (6.1%)||19 (17.1%)|
Note(s): aAnalyzed with Mann–Whitney U test, bAnalyzed with Chi-squared test, *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01
Comparison of development between home-care and day-care center children
|Parameters||Home-care children (n = 66) n (%)||Day-care children (n = 111) n (%)||p-value|
|Total||Normal||51 (77.3)||89 (80.2)||0.84a|
|Suspect||15 (22.7)||22 (19.8)|
|Personal –Social||Advanced item||0 (0)||3 (2.7)||0.19b|
|Normal items||53 (80.3)||94 (84.7)|
|Caution item||13 (19.7)||14 (12.6)|
|Fine-motor-adaptive||Advanced item||13 (19.7)||19 (17.1)||0.50a|
|Normal items||46 (69.7)||85 (76.6)|
|Caution item||7 (10.6)||7 (6.3)|
|Language||Advanced item||16 (24.2)||28 (25.2)||0.97a|
|Normal items||36 (54.5)||61 (55.0)|
|Caution item||14 (21.2)||22 (19.8)|
|Gross motor||Advanced item||7 (10.6)||14 (12.6)||0.48a|
|Normal items||56 (84.8)||87 (78.4)|
|Caution item||3 (4.5)||10 (9.0)|
|Growth||Weight||3rd–97th percentile||62 (93.9)||101 (91.0)||0.69b|
|Above 97th percentile||3 (4.5)||6 (5.4)|
|Under the 3rd percentile||1 (1.5)||4 (3.6)|
|Height||3rd–97th percentile||64 (97.0)||106 (95.5)||0.88b|
|Above 97th percentile||0 (0)||2 (1.8)|
|Under the 3rd percentile||2 (3.0)||3 (3.7)|
Note(s): aAnalyzed with Chi-squared test, bAnalyzed with Fisher’s exact test
Comparison of experience and frequency of illness in the previous two months between home-care and day-care center children
|Parameters||Home-care children (n = 66), n (%)||Day-care children (n = 111), n (%)||OR||95%CI|
|Total number of serious illnesses (n = 23)||5 (7.6)||18 (16.2)||0.42||0.15, 1.20|
|Total number of minor illnesses (n = 145)||47 (71.2)||98 (88.3)||0.33||0.15, 0.72*|
|Serious illness causea|
|Common cold||1 (1.5)||6 (5.4)|
|Acute bronchitis||1 (1.5)||3 (2.7)|
|Pneumonia||1 (1.5)||1 (0.9)|
|Influenza||1 (1.5)||1 (0.9)|
|Diarrhea||1 (1.5)||1 (0.9)|
|Minor illness causeb|
|Common cold||44 (66.7)||87 (78.4)|
|Diarrhea||0 (0.0)||5 (4.5)|
|Fever||1 (1.5)||3 (2.7)|
|Hand, foot and mouth disease||0 (0.0)||3 (2.7)|
Note(s): a,bWe selected only the top five illnesses; *p < 0.05. Serious illness = The condition requires admission to a hospital. Minor illness = The condition does not require admission to a hospital
Factors related to children’s development growth and illness
|Parameters||Relationship of the primary caregiver to children, n (%)||Primary caregiver’s level of education, n (%)||Household type, n (%)||Age of primary caregiver3|
|Mother||Grandparent, n(%)||OR (95%CI)||Lower than graduation from high school n (%)||Graduated high school and upper n (%)||OR (95%CI)||Two parents n (%)||Single parent n (%)||OR (95%CI)||Mean + SD||p|
|Development||Personal–social||Normal||87 (86.1)||32 (84.2)||1.17a (0.41, 3.29)||66 (80.5)||76 (87.4)||0.56a (0.26, 1.38)||127 (83.6)||20 (90.0)||0.51b (0.11, 2.31)||38.1 + 10.3||0.56|
|Caution||14 (13.9)||6 (15.8)||16 (19.5)||11 (12.6)||25 (16.4)||2 (9.1)||39.9 + 14.2|
|Fine-motor-adaptive||Normal||67 (85.9)||34 (97.1)||0.18b (0.02, 1.45)||63 (88.7)||64 (91.4)||0.74a (0.24, 2.25)||111 (89.5)||20 (95.2)||0.43b (0.05, 3.45)||38.9 + 12.1||0.046*|
|Caution||11 (14.1)||1 (2.9)||8 (11.3)||6 (8.6)||13 (10.5)||1 (4.8)||32.6 + 11.3|
|Language||Normal||53 (74.6)||23 (71.9)||1.15a (1.45, 2.94)||49 (70.7)||45 (77.6)||0.67a (0.30, 1.50)||88 (75.2)||9 (56.3)||2.36a (0.81, 6.90)||37.5 + 12.6||0.19|
|Caution||18 (25.4)||9 (28.1)||21 (30.0)||13 (22.4)||29 (24.8)||7 (43.7)||39.9 + 12.2|
|Gross motor||Normal||85 (94.4)||31 (91.2)||1.65b (0.37, 7.29)||71 (93.4)||69 (90.8)||1.44a (0.44, 4.56)||125 (91.2)||18 (94.7)||0.58b (0.07, 4.72)||37.9 + 12.0||0.64|
|Caution||5 (5.6)||3 (8.8)||5 (6.6)||7 (9.2)||12 (8.8)||1 (5.3)||36.2 + 12.7|
|Illness||Serious illness||Yes||9 (8.8)||10 (26.5)||0.281a (0.14, 0.76)**||9 (10.8)||13 (14.6)a||0.71 (0.29, 1.76)||20 (13.0)||3 (13.0)||0.99b (0.27, 3.66)||43.7 + 13.3||0.026*|
|No||93 (91.2)||29 (74.4)||74 (82.9)||76 (85.4)||134 (87.0)||20 (87.0)||37.4 + 12.1|
|Minor illness||Yes||82 (80.4)||34 (87.2)||0.60a (0.21, 1.74)||70 (84.3)||70 (78.7)a||1.46 (0.67, 3.19)||127 (82.5)||18 (73.8)||1.31a (0.45, 3.83)||38.1 + 12.7||0.57|
|No||20 (19.6)||5 (12.8)||13 (15.7)||19 (21.3)||27 (17.5)||5 (21.7)||38.6 + 11.3|
Note(s): aAnalyzed with Chi-square test, bAnalyzed with Fisher’s exact test, 3 Analyzed with Mann–Whitney U test, *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.01
1Bradley RH, Vandell DL. Child care and the well-being of children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007 Jul; 161(7): 669-76. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.161.7.669.
2Groeneveld MG, Vermeer HJ, van Ijzendoorn MH, Linting M. Children's wellbeing and cortisol levels in home-based and center-based childcare. Early Child Res Q. 2010; 25(4): 502-14. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.12.004.
3National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD]. The NICHD study of early child care and youth development: finding for children up to age 4 1/2 years. NICHD; 2006. [cited 2019 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/documents/seccyd_06.pdf.
4Nishitateno S, Shikata M. Has improved daycare accessibility increased Japan's maternal employment rate? Municipal evidence from 2000-2010. J Jpn Int Econ. 2017; 44: 67-77. doi: 10.1016/j.jjie.2017.04.002.
5Voigt RG, Macias MM, Myers SM, Tapia CD. AAP developmental and behavioral pediatrics. 2nd ed. Itasca, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2018.
6Carey W, Crocker A, Elias E, Feldman H, Coleman W. Developmental-behavioral pediatrics. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders/Elsevier; 2009.
7Tierney AL, Nelson CA, 3rd. Brain Development and the role of experience in the early years. Zero to Three. 2009 Nov; 30(2): 9-13.
8Belsky J, Vandell DL, Burchinal M, Clarke-Stewart KA, McCartney K, Owen MT. Are there long-term effects of early child care? Child Dev. 2007 Mar-Apr; 78(2): 681-701. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01021.x.
9NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Child outcomes when child care center classes meet recommended standards for quality. Am J Public Health. 1999 Jul; 89(7): 1072-7.
10Li W, Farkas G, Duncan GJ, Burchinal MR, Vandell DL. Timing of high-quality child care and cognitive, language, and preacademic development. Dev Psychol. 2013 Aug; 49(8): 1440-51. doi: 10.1037/a0030613.
11National Institute of Child Health. Human development early child care research network. The relation of child care to cognitive and language development. National Institute of child health and human development early child care research network. Child Dev. 2000 Jul-Aug; 71(4): 960-80. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00202.
12Gomajee R, El-Khoury F, van der Waerden J, Pryor L, Melchior M. Early life childcare and later behavioral difficulties: a causal relationship? Data from the French EDEN study. J Econ Behav Organ. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2017.11.027.
13Morales M, Bridges LJ. Associations between nonparental care experience and preschooler's emotion regulation in the presence of the mother. J Appl Dev Psychol. 1996; 17(4): 577-96.
14Geoffroy MC, Cote SM, Parent S, Seguin JR. Daycare attendance, stress, and mental health. Can J Psychiatry. 2006 Aug; 51(9): 607-15. doi: 10.1177/070674370605100909.
15Vermeer HJ, van IJzendoorn MH. Children's elevated cortisol levels at daycare: a review and meta-analysis. Early Child Res Q. 2006; 21(3): 390-401. doi: 10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.07.004.
16Vermeer HJ, Groeneveld MG. Children's physiological responses to childcare. Curr Opin Psychol. 2017 Jun; 15: 201-6. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.006.
17Augustine JM, Crosnoe RL, Gordon R. Early child care and illness among preschoolers. J Health Soc Behav. 2013; 54(3): 315-34. doi: 10.1177/0022146513496106.
18Ball TM, Holberg CJ, Aldous MB, Martinez FD, Wright AL. Influence of attendance at day care on the common cold from birth through 13 years of age. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2002 Feb; 156(2): 121-6. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.156.2.121.
19Lu N, Samuels ME, Shi L, Baker SL, Glover SH, Sanders JM. Child day care risks of common infectious diseases revisited. Child Care Health Dev. 2004 Jul; 30(4): 361-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2004.00411.x.
20National Institute of Child Health. Human development early child care research Network. Child care and common communicable illnesses: results from the national Institute of child health and human development study of early child care. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001 Apr; 155(4): 481-8. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.155.4.481.
21Shope TR. Infectious diseases in early education and child care programs. Pediatr Rev. 2014 May; 35(5): 182-93. doi: 10.1542/pir.35-5-182.
22Thailand, Ministry of Public Health, Department of Health. Maternal and child health handbooks. [cited 2019 Sep 5]. Available from: http://www.oic.go.th/FILEWEB/CABINFOCENTER17/DRAWER002/GENERAL/DATA0001/00001200.PDF (in Thai).
23U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics. Women in the labor force: a databook. [updated 2017 Nov; cited 2019 Aug 23]. Available from: https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-databook/2017/pdf/home.pdf.
24Garcia-Moran EM. Child care costs, female labor force participation and public policy. Job Market Paper. [cited 2019 Aug 15] Available from: http://www.unavarra.es/digitalAssets/140/140609_Paper_Eva_Garcia-Moran.pdf.
25Maryland Child Care Resource Network. Trends in child care 2016. [cited 2019 Aug 23]. Available from: http://www.marylandfamilynetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/MFN_Trends_2016.pdf.
26Peisner-Feinberg ES, Burchinal MR, Clifford RM, Culkin ML, Howes C, Kagan SL, et al. The relation of preschool child-care quality to children's cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Dev. 2001 Sep-Oct; 72(5): 1534-53. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00364.
27Social and Quality of Life Database System. Family size and household composition 1980-2017. [cited 2019 Aug 15]. Available from: http://social.nesdb.go.th/SocialStat/StatReport_Final.aspx?reportid=26&template=3R1C&yeartype=M&subcatid=44 (in Thai).
28Esping-Andersen G, Garfinkel I, Han WJ, Magnuson K, Wagner S, Waldfogel J. Child care and school performance in Denmark and the United States. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2012 Mar; 34(3): 576-89. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.10.010.
29Loeb S, Fuller B, Kagan SL, Carrol B. Child care in poor communities: early learning effects of type, quality, and stability. Child Dev. 2004 Jan-Feb; 75(1): 47-65. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00653.x.
30Stolarova M, Brielmann AA, Wolf C, Rinker T, Burke T, Baayen H. Early vocabulary in relation to gender, bilingualism, type, and duration of childcare. Adv Cogn Psychol. 2016; 12(3): 130-44. doi: 10.5709/acp-0192-6.
31Felfe C, Lalive R. Does early child care affect children's development?. J Public Econ. 2018; 159: 33-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.01.014.
32Ericsson I. Effects of increased physical activity on motor skills and marks in physical education: an intervention study in school years 1 through 9 in Sweden. Phys Educ Sport Pedagogy. 2011 Jul; 16(3): 313-29. doi: 10.1080/17408989.2010.545052.
33O'Dwyer M, Fairclough SJ, Ridgers ND, Knowles ZR, Foweather L, Stratton G. Patterns of objectively measured moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in preschool children. J Phys Act Health. 2014 Aug; 11(6): 1233-8. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2012-0163.
34O'Neill JR, Pfeiffer KA, Dowda M, Pate RR. In-school and out-of-school physical activity in preschool children. J Phys Act Health. 2016 Jun; 13(6): 606-10. doi: 10.1123/jpah.2015-0245.
35Reilly JJ. Low levels of objectively measured physical activity in preschoolers in child care. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Mar; 42(3): 502-7. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181cea100.
36Zeng N, Ayyub M, Sun H, Wen X, Xiang P, Gao Z. Effects of physical activity on motor skills and cognitive development in early childhood: a systematic review. Biomed Res Int. 2017; 2017: 2760716. doi: 10.1155/2017/2760716.
37Comuk-Balci N, Bayoglu B, Tekindal A, Kerem-Gunel M, Anlar B. Screening preschool children for fine motor skills: environmental influence. J Phys Ther Sci. 2016 Mar; 28(3): 1026-31. doi: 10.1589/jpts.28.1026.
38Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]. How flu spreads. [updated 2018 Aug 27; cited 2019 Aug 15]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/spread.htm.
39Cordell RL, Waterman SH, Chang A, Saruwatari M, Brown M, Solomon SL. Provider-reported illness and absence due to illness among children attending child-care homes and centers in San Diego, Calif. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1999 Mar; 153(3): 275-80.
40Obeng-Gyasi E, Weinstein MA, Hauser JR, Obeng CS. Teachers' strategies in combating diseases in preschools' environments. Children. 2018 Aug; 5(9). doi: 10.3390/children5090117.
41American Academy of Pediatrics, American public health association, national resource center for health and safety in child care and early education. Caring for our children: national health and safety performance standards; guidelines for early care and education programs. 4th ed. Itasca, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2019. [cited 2019 Nov 5]. Available from: https://nrckids.org/files/CFOC4 pdf- Final.pdf.
42Chaudry A, Henly J, Meyers M. Conceptual frameworks for child care decision-making. ACF-OPRE white paper. Office of planning, research and evaluation, administration for children and families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2010.
43Early DM, Burchinal MR. Early childhood care: relations with family characteristics and preferred care characteristics. Early Child Res Q. 2001; 16(4): 475-97. doi: 10.1016/S0885-2006(01)00120-X.
44Rose KK, Elicker J. Parental decision making about child care. J Fam Issues. 2008 Sep; 29(9): 1161-84. doi: 10.1177/0192513x07312103.
45Sandstrom H, Chaudry A. ‘You have to choose your childcare to fit your work’: childcare decision-making among low-income working families. J Child Poverty. 2012; 18(2): 89-119. doi: 10.1080/10796126.2012.710480.
46Uttal L. Using kin for child care: embedment in the socioeconomic networks of extended families. J Marriage Fam. 1999 Nov; 61(4): 845-57.
The authors would like to thank the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand, for their support of the project and for arranging for a professional English proofreader to edit the manuscript. Special thanks to the subjects who participated in this study and research assistants for their contributions to this study.