ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

The notion of child well-being appears in a larger number of publications nowadays. Our review of the literature underlines both the oddly pathogenic approach to child well-being and the scarcity of papers discussing a still poorly defined notion. Through this review, we identified the recourse to a binary language; from there, we derived five theoretical axes that heed the multidimensionnal and multilevel nature of well-being, although for each one, a pole is here predominantly developed. We argue in favour of an override of a one-dimensional, single-level, unipolar approach to child well-being and a exploration of its otherwise underdeveloped positive, hedonic, subjective, spiritual and collective dimensions.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Child Well-Being: What Does It Mean?
Gae¨lle Amerijckx* and Perrine Claire Humblet
CRISS - Research Centre Social Approaches to Health, School of Public Health, Universite
´Libre de
Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium
The notion of child well-being appears in a large number of publications nowadays. Our
review of the literature underlines both the oddly pathogenic approach to child well-being and
the scarcity of papers discussing a still poorly defined notion. Through this review, we identi-
fied the recourse to a binary language; from there, we derived five theoretical axes that heed
the multidimensional and multilevel nature of well-being, although for each one, a pole is here
predominantly developed. We argue in favour of an override of a one-dimensional, single-level,
unipolar approach to child well-being and an exploration of its otherwise underdeveloped
positive, hedonic, subjective, spiritual and collective dimensions. ©2013 John Wiley & Sons
Ltd and National Children’s Bureau
Keywords: child well-being, notion, review, social ecology.
‘Well-being’ is, without doubt, a very appealing notion. This term can now be found
throughout the scientific literature: across disciplines and in an increasingly large number of
publications. Its growing popularity could be partly explained by the breadth and positive
connotations of the term. But beyond such a broad and unscientific observation, we
believe that a more thorough analysis of the phenomenon is required. We seek here to obtain
a clearer picture of the scope of published research on well-being, but with reference exclu-
sively to children. From there, we draw inferences with regard to the significance of what
would constitute ‘child well-being’. The questions that we ask, therefore, are: (1) What are
the main issues investigated in the child well-being literature? (2) How is the notion
presented and anchored in papers?
The first section of our article consists of a review of the scientific literature on the notion
of child well-being. The second section is devoted to a discussion of five theoretical axes that
we found emerging in our review of the literature. These axes represent a departure from a
too often one-sided approach to this very wide, complex notion of well-being. Indeed, we
identify predominant poles in the literature for each of these axes.
Materials and methodology
To answer our research questions on the conceptualisation and study of child well-being,we
conducted a literature review by researching five references databases, covering the fields of
both biomedicine and the human and social sciences, in which child well-being is specifically
discussed: PUBMED, OVID, JSTOR, Science Direct and the Web of Science. Within each data-
base, we selected papers having both of the terms ‘wellbeing’ (with and without a hyphen)
and ‘child’ in their title. Let us note that our selection strategy of keeping papers holding
specific keywords within the title, aimed at depicting the literature explicitly claiming to
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau
cover the topic, as well as the exclusion of monographs and grey literature, may lead to a
limitation of our conclusions, with respect to the comprehensiveness of the child well-being
The initial query yielded 394 results. As each database has its own search characteristics, this
query led in some cases to precise, refined results, but, in others, to highly unfocused ones.
This raw figure, of 394 papers, was therefore honed according to two principles: relevancy
‘child well-being’ being the actual topic and format only articles were kept.
We then checked for replicas and limited the timeframe to the most productive years: 1991
2010. Seven papers that had been missed in the initial selection were added. In the end, 209
papers remained.
On this set of 209 papers, we operated a first classification based on the three common cate-
gories of theoretical, methodological and empirical papers.
Theoretical papers constitute the smallest contribution to our review, with about 3% of the
papers mainly focusing on theoretical approaches to the notion. Methodological papers, for
their part, encompass approximately 15% of the 209 articles. Finally, empirical papers come
out at the top of the league (82%). This last category essentially focuses on determinants
(78%), with an addition of some descriptive analyses of children’s situations.
How is child well-being conceptualised?
The very small number of theoretical papers, i.e. those primarily discussing the very notion
of child well-being, raises concern. This minimal amount is surprising, as there is to date no
consensus on a definition (OECD, 2009). Moreover, most papers within this small batch also
address the issue through a discussion on its measures or indicators.
Multidimensional, did you say?
Although the multidimensional nature of child well-being has long been noted (Pollard and
Lee, 2003), its actual modulation into specific precepts remains uneasy. A discussion on the
five notions of In need,Rights,Poverty,Quality of life and Social exclusion is initiated by
Axford (2009) to underscore the richness and breadth of the child well-being notion through
the complexity of the debates surrounding each of these five notions. Whereas this latter
encompasses all five notions, according to the author, it is, nonetheless, a more far-reaching
concept as it does not simply equate to their sum. In this same perspective, Camfield and
others (2010) plead for a ‘bridging’ and ‘integrative’ concept that interests different fields of
research (inter alia political science, philosophy, psychology and sociology) and covers vari-
ous topics. For them, the diversity of conceptions results from three distinct perspectives in
the scientific literature: well-being as the outcome of a set of domains,a lens that determines
what is ‘seen’,orasa process in ‘cultural time’ (Camfield and others, 2010). The authors
argue in favour of an integrative approach of these three perspectives.
The role of the context
Another aspect of child well-being conceptualisation relates to the role played by the context.
Indeed, this notion is, by nature, context-specific (Camfield and others, 2010). Well-being
is seen by the authors “as a process located in historically and culturally specific
2 Gae
¨lle Amerijckx & Perrine Claire Humblet
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY (2013)
contexts” (Camfield and others, 2010). As an example, they underline, in the context
of developing countries, how individual well-being cannot be departed from the relation to
others. This is also underscored by Saith and Wazir (2010). Given that most international
research applies to developed countries, they discuss its relevancy in the context of develop-
ing countries, specifically India, and argue against a universalising approach towards child
well-being and an over-intense focus on its material dimensions. Finally, the inclusion of
children’s own perceptions also distances itself from this positivist approach of the conceptu-
alisation of children’s well-being (Fattore and others, 2009).
Measuring child well-being, an ever growing stream of research
General framework
Northern American studies have long dominated this sector of research: this might explain
the two papers devoted to historical developments in child well-being research, solely in the
United States (Land and others, 2007; Lippman, 2007). In the field of psychology, interest in
the study of positive development has grown over the last decade, particularly in the United
States (Moore and Keyes, 2003). In this context, Lippman and others have tried to address
common critics against the so-called ‘softness’ of indicators of positive outcomes (Lippman
and others, 2009; Moore and others, 2004). Such works are rooted in the strength-based
approach that seeks to underline children’s capabilities to enhance them (Pollard and Rosen-
berg, 2003).
Major issues in the study of indicators refer to (i) the necessary distinction between subjec-
tive (experience) and objective (outcome) measures; (ii) the need for a ‘positive development’
approach through the integration of positive indicators in the pool of measures; (iii) the
combination of microdata and population-based data, in a context where the latter mono-
polise the debate; (iv) the segmentation between contextual measures and child outcome
measures in reaction to a confusion prevailing in some papers; (v) the consideration for
ecological diversity of children’s situations; and (vi) the room for multi-method approaches
(Huebner and others, 1999; Jones and Sumner, 2009; Lippman, 2007; Moore and others,
As for the political implications of indicator selection, these are more clearly debated in
Suzanne Hood’s (2007) paper on London children and in a paper devoted to the European
Union at large (Micklewright and Stewart, 1999).
Data issues
Strategies to develop national sets of child well-being indicators are still scarce and appar-
ently resistant to this rich and ‘positive development’ approach. The initial ground for the
development of such data sets was to document, at a regional or country level, children’s
situations as well as potential problematic behaviour for them, with a view to developing
appropriate preventive measures and prevention programmes (Moore and others, 2004). It
implied the collection of data on children’s difficulties (morbidity and mortality indicators)
and their causes, for the whole population of children, and on a recurrent basis. Such an
information system being expansive, this could partly explain why, given the narrowness of
available data, empirical research has been enclosed for so long in a very restrictive perime-
ter of analysis. Indeed, we observed a reverse logic in the discussions over appropriate indi-
cators, in that the data appeared to directly determine the field of discussions, instead of
closing it (Bradshaw and others, 2009; Niclasen and Ko
¨hler, 2009; Sawyer and others, 2000).
Child Well-Being Reviewed 3
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY (2013)
At a local level, various scales have been developed; but most focus on specific dimensions,
i.e. physical and psychological (Gaudin and others, 1992; Smith and Brun, 2006) or specific
contexts, i.e. Magura and Moses’ Child Well-Being Scale as an evaluation tool for a family
services agency (Lyons and others, 1999).
Children’s perspective
Finally, a handful of papers address the feasibility and added-value to research of the inte-
gration of children’s perspective on their own situation (Norrby and others, 1999). Child
well-being’s subjective nature is thus here more or less given; evidence leading in that direc-
tion relates for instance to the discrepancy existing between a population’s perspective on
children’s level of well-being and its valuation by official statistics (Guzman and others,
2009). Thus, the object of debates relates to the need for appropriate methods of research
(Crivello and others, 2009).
The empirics of child well-being
Child well-being, a matter of determinants?
A first observation concerns the extremely targeted nature of most of the well-being studies
in this category. In contradiction to the broad and multidimensional approach advocated by
many authors (Bradshaw and others, 2006; Camfield and others, 2010; OECD, 2009; Pollard
and Lee, 2003), the majority of papers develop only one dimension or aspect. We classified
papers on the basis of their central topic, through an inductive analysis of the material.
Among these topics, health factors (i.e. health problems, health history and various types of
health-related behaviour), family factors (i.e. family structure, family history, intra-household
relationships and parents’ behaviour towards children), economic factors (i.e. parents’ work
and socioeconomic status, and families’ level of affluence) and political factors (i.e. social
and welfare policies) were particularly widely discussed.
To further structure this analysis and make explicit the different levels of determinants actu-
ally considered in the literature, we used Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) theory of Ecology of
Human Development and its structure resting upon four distinct levels of micro, meso, exo
and macro systems. Indeed, this comprehensive and context-specific model enables us to
cover and organise all issues affecting individuals (Figure 1).
We observed a high concentration of papers on microsystems (about 65% of the category)
the environments in which children directly participate with a special focus on the
Figure 1. Levels of factors influencing children’s wellbeing.
4 Gae
¨lle Amerijckx & Perrine Claire Humblet
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY (2013)
family/home environment. If we look more closely, it appears that most of these papers
focus on problems or harmful dynamics occurring within the family context. The analysis
of families’ virtuous characteristics and dynamics is overlooked: the main examples would
be couple’s divorces or separations (Amato and Cheadle, 2005; Amato and Keith, 1991;
Cudina and Obradovic, 2001; Morrison and Cherlin, 1995; Yongmin and Yuanzhang,
2002), parental conflicts (King and Heard, 1999; Vandewater and Lansford, 1998), father’s
absence (Bzostek, 2008; Perloff and Buckner, 1996), parent’s substance abuse (Lundgren
and others, 2007; Osborne and Berger, 2009), parent’s incarceration (Geller and others,
2009) or parent’s (physical or mental) health problems, impairments or disabilities
(Annunziato and others, 2007; Luoma and others, 2001; Prilleltensky, 2004). This list por-
trays a rather dark vision of modern families and their contributions to child well-being,
thereby bearing out the theory of ‘family decline’ (Houseknecht and Sastry, 1996). If we
add to the list children’s health problems (Brandow and others, 2010; Keilmann and others,
2007), and child abuse (McPhedran, 2009; Perlman and Fantuzzo, 2010), we can see that a
good deal of attention is being devoted at the microsystems level to studying aspects,
which adversely affect children.
Attention paid to the impact of the community is quite exceptional in this regard. Indeed,
these studies also consider positive outcomes for children (Bradley and Lowe Vandell, 2007;
Ferguson, 2006; Reynolds and others, 2003).
The few references we found in relation to mesosystems (about 5%) which comprises the
inter-relations between microsystems follow a more complete pattern of analysis. A broad
set of characteristics of the community including its virtuous characteristics of the
direct environment, or of the neighbourhood in which children live, are considered. The
characteristics of the child, his/her family, the various services available, and his/her neigh-
bourhood are examined altogether, for their part in shaping child well-being. This approach,
placing the individual at the centre of his/her environment, refers back to health promotion
(Alperstein and Raman, 2003) and socio-ecological studies (Kohrt and others, 2010), which
both share an interest in communities’ participation in the shaping of children’s lives (Gill,
Studies falling into the category of exosystems (about 8%) which concern environments
wherein children do not participate, but that affect them nonetheless for their part, are
centred on the analysis of economic factors that affect families with children, and the way
in which these factors influence child well-being. This group includes the study of one or
both parents’ work statuses and schedules on the one hand (Hsueh and Yoshikawa, 2007;
Dunifon and others, 2005; Secret and Peck-Heath, 2004; Strazdins and others, 2004), as well
as the financial position of the household, on the other. Economic inequalities between chil-
dren and their impact on child well-being are reserved for rich countries (Ozawa and others,
2004; Pickett and Wilkinson, 2007). A significant number of authors adopted a longitudinal
perspective to see how the duration (or instability) of a situation, rather than solely its nat-
ure, would affect children (Pedersen and others, 2005; Vogt Yuan, 2008).
As for macrosystems (about 23%) the broad environment that cut across all systems
we mainly found research into policies addressing certain types of households with children:
single-parent families, households on low income or living in poverty, welfare recipients
(Dunifon and others, 2006; Lee, 2009; Wu, 2008). This dovetails with our observation
concerning the concentration of papers on problematic issues, but it might be merely
Child Well-Being Reviewed 5
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY (2013)
circumstantial here, as most research covers countries (i.e. UK, USA) where policies target
underprivileged families or are antipoverty instead of following a universalistic approach to
social provision. Nevertheless, the main angle of investigation concerns the cost-effectiveness
of government measures, and not so much the actual assessment of populations’ well-being.
Many of these publications focus on the nature and effects of child support policies (Barham
and Devlin, 2003; Bartfeld, 2000; Pirog-Good, 1993; Rettig and others, 1991). In particular,
some studies focus on childcare subsidies (Brooks, 2002) or analyse the impact of a ‘univer-
sally accessible’ childcare system on family well-being and in relation to mothers’ work
(Baker and others, 2008).
In parallel, a few papers discuss the pros and cons of social policies as regards the work/life
balance for families, a trendy issue in European countries. These policies comprise leave peri-
ods (Bergmann, 2008; Galtry and Callister, 2005) and working conditions (Gennetian and
Morris, 2003; Kalil and Dunifon, 2007; London and others, 2004). As such, child well-being
is seen as the antithesis of mother well-being, or at least authors focus on the impact of chil-
dren on women’s labour market participation in relation to gender issues.
Child well-being factsheets
The interest for international comparisons has grown strong these last few years, in the line
of UNICEF reports (Dijkstra, 2009). Although few in number, the papers considered here
matter as they more broadly participate in the advocacy of children’s rights around the
world. Unfortunately, these works rest mainly on the combination of population indicators
(Richardson and others, 2008).
As such, the analyses have limitations in their capacity to
offer a refined description of children’s diversity of situations, at a local level and on an
individual basis. Furthermore, they usually rely on existing data. As a result, we find many
studies perpetuate an analysis of child well-being’s negative aspects. A related perverse effect
is the emergence within the public opinion of a pessimistic vision about the youth and its
future prospects (Moore and others, 2004).
Five structural theoretical axes
After reviewing this CWB literature, we revert to our second research question: the notion
of CWB itself. As previously discussed, little literature is devoted to it and no consensus
prevails around it. In keeping with a rich and complex approach to child well-being, where
it cannot be narrowed down to the study of a single aspect of a single dimension, we
attempted to gather and make explicit a structure taking account of its multidimensional
and multilevel nature. Our starting observation of this literature was the binary language
commonly used throughout the papers. Our purpose was then to identify the main binary
axes covered in our literature and try to make sense and order of it. We have unfolded
five axes.
Axis 1: positive versus negative
Although the term well-being has a rather positive connotation, it is, nonetheless, double-
sided, in that there is a duality between the positive and negative manifestations of well-
being. As has become plain, most studies investigate mainly the negative manifestations of
well-being; some even study it exclusively, following the pathogenesis model. Nonetheless,
interest in the study of positive development has grown over the last decade, as we have seen
(Moore and Keyes, 2003).
6 Gae
¨lle Amerijckx & Perrine Claire Humblet
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY (2013)
Axis 2: objective versus subjective
The notion of well-being contains another duality, most obvious in relation to its measure-
ment: a distinction between subjective and objective measures of well-being (Axford, 2009;
Camfield and others, 2010; Lippman, 2007; Pollard and Lee, 2003). Although most research
projects present a panel of objective measures, this objectification does not take account of
the inner subjectivity of well-being. Indeed, its subjective nature has been demonstrated
through the discrepancies existing between people’s perception of children’s circumstances
and children’s perception of their own circumstances, thereby defending the integration of
children’s own perspective (Ben-Arieh and others, 2009; Fox and others, 2008; Guzman and
others, 2009).
Axis 3: state versus process
Whereas some consider well-being as a current state, others see it more as a process. This
dichotomy has been described in the literature (Carlisle and others, 2009; Jones and Sum-
ner, 2009; Ryan and Deci, 2001) as a hedonic vision, in the former case, where the here
and now is what matters, in the same line as the Convention on the Rights of the Child
(UN, 1989). In the latter case, the eudemonic vision considers a larger timeframe, which
can encompass a lifetime. The dichotomy is particularly meaningful when considering a
child population, as many discourses on childhood revolve around the notion of invest-
ment in childhood.
Axis 4: material versus spiritual
Well-being can also be characterised by its material aspects as opposed to its more spiritual
ones. The former are discussed here extensively as concerns access to financial, health,
educational and family resources, or the lack thereof. And this has a good deal to do with
the underlying societal model surrounding these studies. Thus, ‘Well-being is now a highly
valuable and valued commodity in Western consumer culture and is heavily and cleverly
marketed’ (Carlisle and Hanlon, 2008). In a discussion based on appropriate indicators in
the context of India, the predominance of the ‘developed countries’ model has been high-
lighted and the need for a new model adapted to the developing countries argued for (Saith
and Wazir, 2010): the call for a rethink of the content of the notion of well-being is based
on macroeconomic factors. Nevertheless, in a context of high migration flows and growing
socioeconomic inequality, people’s perspectives on this matter may differ more than are pre-
sumed. Whether as a form of dissidence or as an alternative to the main model, more people
are keen to consider non-material aspects as an integral part of their balance (Carlisle and
others, 2009; Mark and Lyons, 2010).
Axis 5: individual versus community
Well-being can finally be defined by the amount of individualisation of a community, which
emphasises more or less strongly the role played by a collective group in individuals’ lives.
This issue has been discussed in the following terms by Izquierdo (2005), with regard to the
Matsigenka people of the Peruvian Amazon: ‘To what extent is well-being thought of in
individual terms, and to what extent is it conceived of as a matter of belonging to entities
beyond the self?’ The results of her investigation showed that Matsigenka people link well-
being with ‘positive and nurturing interpersonal social relations; providing for the family;
Child Well-Being Reviewed 7
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY (2013)
sharing; controlling anger, disputes and jealousy; being free of illness; and () traditional
ways and values as symbols of goodness and happiness’ (Izquierdo, 2005). Although the
characteristics of this fieldwork are unique, and one cannot expect similar results in all
contexts, we can, nevertheless, speculate that they might apply, to some degree, to other less
unique contexts. As has been shown in some research on health and well-being concepts
seen by stakeholders in a Health Inequalities Programme in the UK, similar concerns for the
collective dimension of well-being do exist (Cameron and others, 2006). The predominance
of psychology and economics in the field of research on well-being may partly explain why
this collective dimension has scarcely been investigated as yet. As we have seen, there are
few papers on the exo- and macrosystems of children’s environments, and most attention has
been devoted to individual processes, mainly in the family context. But another explanation
lies in the much more individualistic nature of western societies, with less attention being
devoted to broader social and community relationships (Carlisle and others, 2009).
In conclusion to this section, one of our main findings regarding the literature reviewed is
the salience of one pole for each axis. The negative, eudemonic, objective, material and indi-
vidual approaches to child well-being predominate over its positive, hedonic, subjective,
spiritual and collective dimensions.
The debate on this very complex notion is still a developing field of research. A step towards
a global perspective on the study of child well-being would reside, in our view, at the
junction of our five theoretical axes. As such, this proposition of theoretical framework
implies that, for each research, a specific combination of positioning on each one of the five
axes could and should apply. We thus argue in favour of overriding a one-dimensional,
single-level, unipolar approach to child well-being, and for further development of its
positive, hedonic, subjective, spiritual and collective dimensions.
This work was supported by the Institut d’encouragement de la Recherche Scientifique et de
l’Innovation de Bruxelles, en Belgique [PRFB 2011-126]. We thank Tullia Musatti of the Isti-
tuto di Scienze e Tecnologie of the Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (Rome, Italy) for her
precious comments on various earlier versions of this text.
1 Let us underline the evolving perspective of the UNICEF in this area, one that has been
developed through various reports, but which does not appertain to this review.
Alperstein G, Raman S. 2003. Promoting mental health and emotional well-being among children and
youth: a role for community child health? Child: Care, Health & Development 29: 269274.
Amato PR, Cheadle J. 2005. The long reach of divorce: divorce and child-well-being across three gener-
ations. Journal of Marriage and the Family 67: 191206.
8 Gae
¨lle Amerijckx & Perrine Claire Humblet
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY (2013)
Amato PR, Keith B. 1991. Parental divorce and the well-being of children: a meta-analysis. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin 110:2646.
Annunziato RA, Rakotomihamina V, Rubacka J. 2007. Examining the effects of maternal chronic illness
on child well-being in single parent families. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 28:
Saith A, Wazir R. 2010. Towards conceptualizing child wellbeing in india: the need for a paradigm
shift. Child Indicators Research 3: 385408.
Axford N. 2009. Child well-being through different lenses: why concept matters. Child and Family
Social Work 14: 372383.
Baker M, Gruber J, Milligan K. 2008. Universal child care, maternal labor supply, and family well-
being. Journal of Political Economy 116: 709745.
Barham V, Devlin RA. 2003. Child-support policies and the well-being of children: income versus
wealth-based measures. Canadian Public Policy 29: 351365.
Bartfeld J. 2000. Child support and the postdivorce economic well-being of mothers, fathers, and chil-
dren. Demography 37: 203213.
Ben-Arieh A, McDonell J, Attar-Schwartz S. 2009. Safety and home-school relations as indicators of
children well being: whose perspective counts? Social Indicators Research 90: 339349.
Bergmann BR. 2008. Long leaves, child well-being, and gender equality. Politics & Society 36: 350
Bradley RH, Lowe Vandell D. 2007. Child care and the well-being of children. Archives of Pediatrics
and Adolescent Medicine 161: 669676.
Bradshaw J, Hoelscher P, Richardson D. 2006. Comparing Child Well-Being in OECD Countries: Con-
cepts and Methods. United Nations Children’s Fund: Florence.
Bradshaw J, Noble M, Bloor K, Huby M, McLennan D, Rhodes D, Sinclair I, Wilkinson K. 2009. A child
well-being index at small area level in England. Child Indicators Research 2: 201219.
Brandow AM, Brousseau DC, Pajewski NM, Panepinto JA. 2010. Vaso-occlusive painful events in sickle
cell disease: impact on child well-being. Pediatric Blood & Cancer 54:9397.
Bronfenbrenner U. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development. Experiments by Nature and Design. Har-
vard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Brooks F. 2002. Impact of child care subsidies on family and child well-being. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly 17: 498511.
Bzostek SH. 2008. Social fathers and child well-being. Journal of Marriage and the Family 70: 950961.
Cameron E, Mathers J, Parry J. 2006. “Health and well-being”: questioning the use of health concepts
in public health policy and practice. Critical Public Health 16: 347354.
Camfield L, Streuli N, Woodhead M. 2010. Children’s well-being in developing countries: a conceptual
and methodological review. European Journal of Development Research 22: 398416.
Carlisle S, Hanlon P. 2008. Commentary: “Well-being” as a focus for public health? A critique and
defence. Critical Public Health 18: 263270.
Carlisle S, Henderson G, Hanlon PW. 2009. “Wellbeing”: a collateral casualty of modernity? Social Sci-
ence & Medicine 69: 15561560.
Crivello G, Camfield L, Woodhead M. 2009. How can children tell us about their wellbeing? Exploring
the potential of participatory approaches within young lives. Social Indicators Research 90:5172.
Cudina M, Obradovic J. 2001. Child’s emotional well-being and parental marriage stability in Croatia.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies 32: 247.
Dijkstra TK. 2009. Child well-being in rich countries: UNICEF’s ranking revisited, and new symmetric
aggregating operators exemplified. Child Indicators Research 2: 303317.
Dunifon R, Kalil A, Bajracharya A. 2005. Maternal working conditions and child well-being in welfare-
leaving families. Developmental Psychology 41: 851859.
Dunifon R, Hymes K, Peters HE. 2006. Welfare reform and child well-being. Children and Youth Ser-
vices Review 28: 12731292.
Fattore T, Mason J, Watson E. 2009. When children are asked about their well-being: towards a frame-
work for guiding policy. Child Indicators Research 2:5777.
Child Well-Being Reviewed 9
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY (2013)
Ferguson KM. 2006. Social capital and children’s wellbeing: a critical synthesis of the international
social capital literature. International Journal of Social Welfare 15:218.
Fox A, Duerr Berrick J, Frash K. 2008. Safety, family, permanency, and child well-being: what we can
learn from children. Child Welfare 87:6390.
Galtry J, Callister P. 2005. Assessing the optimal length of parental leave for child and parental
well-being. How can research inform policy? Journal of Family Issues 26: 219246.
Gaudin JM Jr, Polansky NA, Kilpatrick AC. 1992. The Child Well-Being scales: a field trial. Child
Welfare 71: 319328.
Geller A, Garfinkel I, Cooper CE, Mincy RB. 2009. Parental incarceration and child well-being: implica-
tions for urban families. Social Science Quarterly 90: 11861202.
Gennetian LA, Morris PA. 2003. The effects of time limits and make-work-pay strategies on the
well-being of children: experimental evidence from two welfare reform programs. Children and
Youth Services Review 25:1754.
Gill T. 2008. Space-oriented children’s policy: creating child-friendly communities to improve children’s
well-being. Children & Society 22: 136142.
Guzman L, Lippma L, Moore AK, O’Hare W. 2009. Accentuating the negative: the mismatch between
public perception of child well-being and official statistics. Child Indicators Research 2: 391416.
Hood S. 2007. Reporting on children’s well-being: the state of London’s children reports. Social Indica-
tors Research 80: 249264.
Houseknecht SK, Sastry J. 1996. Family “decline” and child well-being; a comparative assessment.
Journal of Marriage and the Family 58: 726739.
Hsueh J, Yoshikawa H. 2007. Working nonstandard schedules and variable shifts in low-income fami-
lies: associations with parental psychological well-being, family functioning, and child well-being.
Developmental Psychology 43: 620632.
Huebner ES, Gilman R, Leughlin JE. 1999. A multimethod investigation of the multidimensionality of
children’s well-being reports: discriminant validity of life satisfaction and self-esteem. Social Indica-
tors Research 46:122.
Izquierdo C. 2005. When ‘health’ is not enough: societal, individual and biomedical assessments of
well-being among the Matsigenka of the Peruvian Amazon. Social Science & Medicine 61: 767783.
Jones N, Sumner A. 2009. Does mixed methods research matter to understanding childhood well-being?
Social Indicators Research 90:3350.
Kalil A, Dunifon R. 2007. Maternal work and welfare use and child well-being: evidence from 6 years
of data from the Women’s Employment Study. Children and Youth Services Review 29: 742761.
Keilmann A, Limberger A, Mann WJ. 2007. Psychological and physical well-being in hearing-impaired
children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology 71: 17471752.
King V, Heard HE. 1999. Nonresident father visitation, parental conflict, and mother’s satisfaction:
what’s best for child well-being? Journal of Marriage and the Family 61: 385396.
Kohrt BA, Jordans MJ, Tol WA, Perera E, Karki R, Koirala S, Upadhaya N. 2010. Social ecology of child
soldiers: child, family, and community determinants of mental health, psychosocial well-being, and
reintegration in Nepal. Transcultural Psychiatry 47: 727753.
Land KC, Lamb VL, O’Meadows S, Taylor A. 2007. Measuring trends in child well-being: an evidence-
based approach. Social Indicators Research 80: 105132.
Lee K. 2009. Impact of the 1996 Welfare Reform on child and family well-being. Journal of Community
Psychology 37:602617.
Lippman LH. 2007. Indicators and indices of child well-being: a brief American history. Social Indica-
tors Research 83:3953.
Lippman LH, Moore KA, McIntosh H. 2009. Positive Indicators of Child Well-being: A Conceptual
Framework, Measures and Methodological Issues. Innocenti Research Centre: Florence.
London AS, Scott EK, Edin K, Hunter V. 2004. Welfare reform, work-family tradeoffs, and child well-
being. Family Relations 53: 148158.
Lundgren LM, Fitzgerlad T, Young N, Amodeo M, Schilling RF. 2007. Medication assisted drug treat-
ment and child well-being. Children and Youth Services Review 29: 10511069.
10 Gae
¨lle Amerijckx & Perrine Claire Humblet
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY (2013)
Luoma I, Tamminen T, Kaukonen P, Laippala P, Puura K, Salmelin R, Almqvist F. 2001. Longitudinal
study of maternal depressive symptoms and child well-being. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 40: 13671374.
Lyons P, Doueck HJ, Kopster AJ, Witzky MK, Kelly PL. 1999. The Child Well-Being scales as a clinical
tool and a management information system. Child Welfare 78: 241258.
Mark GT, Lyons AC. 2010. Maori healers’ views on wellbeing: the importance of mind, body, spirit,
family and land. Social Science & Medicine 70: 17561764.
McPhedran S. 2009. Animal abuse, family violence, and child wellbeing: a review. Journal of Family
Violence 24:4152.
Micklewright J, Stewart K. 1999. Is the well-being of children converging in the European Union? The
Economic Journal 109: 692714.
Moore AK, Keyes CLM. 2003. A brief history of the study of well-being in children and adults. In Well-
Being, Positive Development Across the Life Course. Bornstein MH, Davidson L, Keyes CLM, Moore
KA (eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ; 111.
Moore KA, Lippman L, Brown B. 2004. Indicators of child well-being: the promise for positive youth
development. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 591: 125145.
Moore KA, Theokas C, Lippman L, Bloch M, Vandivere S, O’Hare W. 2008. A microdata child well-being
index: conceptualization, creation, and findings. Child Indicators Research 1:1750.
Morrison DR, Cherlin AJ. 1995. The divorce process and young children’s well-being: a prospective
analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57: 800812.
Niclasen B, Ko
¨hler L. 2009. National indicators of child health and well-being in Greenland. Scandina-
vian Journal of Public Health 37: 347356.
Norrby U, Carlsson J, Beckubg E, Nordholm L. 1999. Self-assessment of well-being in a group of chil-
dren with epilepsy. Seizure 8: 228234.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD. 2009. Doing Better for Children:
Chapter 2 Comparative Child Well-being Across the OECD. OECD: Paris.
Osborne C, Berger LM. 2009. Parental substance abuse and child well-being. A consideration of parent’s
gender and coresidence. Journal of Family Issues 30: 341370.
Ozawa MN, Joo M, Kim J. 2004. Economic deprivation and child well-being: a state-by-state analysis.
Children and Youth Services Review 26: 785801.
Pedersen CR, Holstein BE, Ko
¨hler L. 2005. Parents’ labour market participation as predictor of children’s
well-being: changes from 1984 to 1993 in the Nordic countries. European Journal of Public Health
15: 431436.
Perlman S, Fantuzzo J. 2010. Timing and influence of early experiences of child maltreatment and
homelessness on children’s educational well-being. Children and Youth Services Review 32: 874
Perloff JN, Buckner JC. 1996. Fathers of children on welfare: their impact on child well-being. Ameri-
can Journal of Orthopsychiatry 66: 557571.
Pickett KE, Wilkinson RG. 2007. Child wellbeing and income inequality in rich societies: ecological
cross sectional study. British Medical Journal 335: 10801087.
Pirog-Good MA. 1993. Child support guidelines and the economic well-being of children in the United
States. Family Relations 42: 453462.
Pollard EL, Lee PD. 2003. Child well-being: a systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators
Research 61:5978.
Pollard EL, Rosenberg ML. 2003. The strengths-based approach to child well-being: let’s begin with the
end in mind. In Well-Being, Positive Development Across the Life Course. Bornstein MH, Davidson L,
Keyes CLM, Moore KA (eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: Mahwah, NJ; 1321.
Prilleltensky O. 2004. My child is not my carer: mothers with physical disabilities and the well-being of
children. Disability & Society 19: 209223.
Rettig K, Hendrickson Christensen D, Dahl CM. 1991. Impact of child support guidelines on the eco-
nomic well-being of children. Family Relations 40: 167175.
Reynolds AJ, Temple JA, Ou S-R. 2003. School-based early intervention and child well-being in the
Chicago Longitudinal Study. Child Welfare 82: 633656.
Child Well-Being Reviewed 11
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY (2013)
Richardson D, Hoelscher P, Bradshaw J. 2008. Child well-being in central and eastern European coun-
tries and the Commonwealth of Independent States. Child Indicators Research 1: 211250.
Ryan RM, Deci EL. 2001. On happiness and human potentials: a review of research on hedonic and eu-
daimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 141166.
Sawyer MG, Kosky RJ, Graetz BW, Arney F, Zubrick SR, Bazghurst P. 2000. The National Survey on
Mental Health and Wellbeing: the child and adolescent component. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Psychiatry 34: 214220.
Secret M, Peck-Heath C. 2004. Maternal labor force participation and child well-being in public assis-
tance families. Journal of Family Issues 25: 520541.
Smith MK, Brun CF. 2006. An analysis of selected measures of child well-being for use at school- and
community-based family resource centers. Child Welfare 86: 9851010.
Strazdins L, Korda RJ, Lim LL-Y, Broom DH, D’Souza RM. 2004. Around-the-clock: parent work sched-
ules and children’s well-being in a 24-h economy. Social Science & Medicine 59: 15171527.
United Nations (UN). 1989. Convention on the Rights of the Child. UN: New York.
Vandewater EA, Lansford JE. 1998. Influences of family structure and parental conflict on children’s
well-being. Family Relations 47: 323330.
Vogt Yuan AS. 2008. Exploring the changes in economic hardship and children’s well-being over time:
the linked lives of parents and children. Advances in Life Course Research 13: 321341.
Wu C-F. 2008. Severity, timing, and duration of welfare sanctions and the economic well-being of
TANF families with children. Children and Youth Services Review 30:2644.
Yongmin S, Yuanzhang L. 2002. Children’s well-being during parents’ marital disruption process: a
pooled time-series analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family 64: 472488.
*Correspondence to: Gae
¨lle Amerijckx, CRISS - Research Centre Social Approaches to Health, School of Public
Health, Universite
´Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808 CP596, B-1070 Bruxelles, Belgium, Tel.:
+32 2 555 40 91; Fax: +32 2 555 40 49. E-mail:
Accepted for publication 11 August 2012
12 Gae
¨lle Amerijckx & Perrine Claire Humblet
©2013 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and National Children’s Bureau CHILDREN & SOCIETY (2013)
... Well-being is a complex construct that includes physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and economic domains (Pollard & Lee, 2003). Different factors can have effects on children's physical and emotional well-being (Amerijckx & Humblet, 2014); among these, the recent literature has indicated family adversity and the school context (e.g., Scrimin et al., 2018). ...
... The teacher version of the questionnaire about school well-being was completed by the coordinating teacher of the class. The decision to involved mothers rather than the fathers was based on the existing literature that shows a higher MJCP|9, 3, 2021 Camia et al. 6 level of participation of the mothers and more precise answers in report samples completed by mothers (e.g., Scorza et al., 2018). ...
Full-text available
Background: A growing body of literature shows relationships between behavioral problems and pragmatic abilities in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. However, the link between pragmatic skills, school well-being and psychological health in typically developing children is still under explored. The present study was aimed at an analysis of the relationships between well-being, behavioral problems, and pragmatics in Italian children from the general population. Methods: The sample included sixty typically developing children, their mothers, and their teachers. The mothers completed the Children’s Communication Checklist, second edition, the Questionnaire on School Well-being and the Child Behavior Checklist, questionnaires that evaluate children’s pragmatic abilities, school well-being, and psychopathological symptoms, respectively. The teachers completed the Questionnaire on School Well-being. Results: Close relationships between pragmatic abilities and school well-being were found. In particular, according to both mothers and teachers, Stereotyped language and Use of context were the two pragmatic variables most strongly associated with school well-being. Pragmatic abilities were also linked to externalizing and internalizing symptoms and with specific behavioural problems such as social and attentional problems. Conclusions: This study sheds light on the close relationships between pragmatic abilities and school well-being and psychological health in typically developing children. We discuss the relevance of focusing attention on early pragmatic competences in children and the importance of considering the school as a crucial setting for psychological assessment and interventions.
... Child well-being literature generally emphasizes the multidimensional nature of the former, which includes mental, psychological, physical, and social dimensions (Amerijckx & Humblet, 2014;Pollard & Lee, 2003). For example, the Children's Worlds project inquiries into satisfaction with family circumstances, home environment, school, teachers, schoolmates, friendship connections, material circumstances, and the local environment and neighbourhood (Rees & Main, 2015). ...
There is rising interest in linking research on subjective well-being and the intergenerational transmission of personality traits, attitudes, norms, values, subjective evaluations, and satisfaction. Beyond the mere study of the intergenerational transmission of well-being, there has been a growing focus on the influence of parenting practices and parenting performance on adolescents’ well-being. This analysis explores the effects of parenting on this transmission with special attention to gender differences. Our investigation is based on representative survey data involving 852 Hungarian nuclear families with 12–16-year-old children from 2017. In bivariate terms, our paper compares parental and adolescent subjective well-being by investigating the association between their satisfaction. In multivariate terms, a regression model is developed whereby adolescents’ well-being is predicted by parental well-being and quality of parenting, controlled for individual and family characteristics, as well as the time parents and children, spend together. Results show that the intergenerational transmission of subjective well-being is very significant and is associated with gender-based variation in subjective quality of parenting. Based on the analysis, we highlight gender differences in relation to both parents and adolescents.
... Nested Definitions of Child Safety, Child Protection, Safeguarding, and Well-Being Although "improv[ing] well-being" is included as a stated purpose of the CA2014 (cl 4b), this term creates potential for ambiguity within the boundaries of this study. It is an overarching, aspirational term that remains poorly defined in the literature (Amerijckx & Humblet, 2014). "Well-being" is a term used in schools in many ways, including improving mental health outcomes, antibullying strategies, suicide prevention, healthy lifestyles, and many other positive personal growth attributes which are more often the focus of pastoral care (MoE, n.d.-k). ...
Full-text available
Aotearoa New Zealand’s rates of child abuse and neglect (CAN) are amongst the worst in the OECD. The Children’s Act 2014 legislated for child protection policies (CPPs) to be implemented in all schools, in place of mandatory reporting. This includes the expectation all personnel—not just teachers, the usual focus of literature on CAN training—be able to identify and respond to both suspected and actual abuse and neglect. This is also an expectation within the Teaching Council New Zealand’s Code of Professional Responsibility. This instrumental case study investigated how one school normalized a child safety focus regarding CAN, as directed by legislated CPPs. It used Normalization Process Theory (NPT) to understand how the Act’s expectations might be implemented, embedded, and integrated into routine work by all school personnel. This is a novel use of NPT. It used applied theatre as a research method, which provided prompts for plenary and focus group discussions, and for the creation of written artefacts. Individual interviews, and a meeting to review the school’s CPP, offered personnel opportunities to reflect on their understandings. The head of an initial teacher education (ITE) provider was also interviewed. Statutory bodies’ websites were trawled to determine what support was offered for implementing CPPs. It found that CPPs were implemented to the point of compliance with the Act. However, for most personnel, procedures included within CPPs are not embedded or integrated to the point they might be considered normalized. Insufficient opportunities for developing coherence and cognitive participation are provided within the school, by statutory bodies, or by ITE, which impacts upon collective action. Time and cost are barriers, especially to participation in training by non-teaching personnel. While all participants agreed child protection was important, many believed the required work was being conducted by someone else. Recommendations include the need for a national resource repository to support all organizations required to hold a CPP. This should include online training modules as these can be accessed at no cost, and at times which suit all personnel. Permanent URL:
... Specifically, we aim to capture both positive and negative manifestations of well-being reflecting both strengths and challenges experienced by the children and youth in our sample. To address critiques leveled against unidimensional approaches [29] we use multiple well-being measures: ...
Full-text available
While a substantial body of literature suggests that lasting community mentoring relationships can have a range of positive effects on youths, little is known about these effects in the Nordic welfare context, where community mentees may have lower risk profiles compared to many previous samples. This study explores how the duration (length) of child mentoring relationships predicts parental perceptions of child well-being among 197 children served by Denmark’s most extensive community-based youth mentoring program. We find that children who have had a mentor for at least one year are perceived to have significantly higher well-being. In contrast, we find no significant differences in well-being between children who had mentors for less than one year and children on a waiting list. Previous research, conducted in primarily North American contexts, finds that longer mentoring relationships substantially improve school behavior and reduce risk taking. Our results add to the literature by indicating that a minimum mentoring relationship duration of one year appears to be similarly important in promoting well-being for youths involved in community-based mentoring programs in a Nordic welfare context.
... Based on this perspective increasing research efforts to analyze children's subjective well-being are made to consider them as participating subjects and not only study objects (Alcantara et al., 2017(Alcantara et al., , 2019Cho, 2015;Giacomoni et al., 2014;Lawler et al., 2015Lawler et al., , 2017Lee & Yoo, 2015;Newland et al., 2015Newland et al., , 2019Santos et al., 2019;Sarriera et al., 2018). However, most studies still focus on negative indicators of childhood and the objective perspective (of adults) to the detriment of the subjective (of children) (Amerijckx & Humblet, 2014). Therefore, the importance of studies on the children's well-being from the perspective of health and positive psychological development should be highlighted (Dell'Aglio et al., 2011;Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). ...
Full-text available
This study is part of the third wave of data collection of the international project “Children’s Worlds” (Children’s Worlds, the International Survey of Children’s Well-Being – ISCWeB). The objective was to check the psychometric properties of three child subjective well-being scales—the Children’s Worlds Subjective Well-Being Scale (CW-SWBS), the Children’s Worlds Domain-Based Subjective Well-Being Scale (CW-DBSWBS), and the Overall Life Satisfaction (OLS)—in relation to school type, gender, age, and residential region. The research was conducted in the metropolitan regions of the states of Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Paraná, and São Paulo, Brazil. Participants were 2676 students from three different age groups (8, 10, and 12 years old), 54.05% girls, with 70.74% enrolled in public school. The results found the psychometric properties of the instruments as adequate, and found evidence of convergent validity of both the CW-SBWS and the CW-DBSBWS with the OLS, which provides support for the use of these instruments in Brazil. These results contribute to the canon of research on children's subjective well-being, in a Latin American context.
... Deși aceste definiții vizează în special adulții, mai mulți cercetători au pus în evidență valabilitatea lor în autoevaluarea stării de bine la copii (Amerijckx & Humblet, 2014;Ben-Arieh et al., 2014;Huebner, 2014). Variante prescurtate ale scalei lui Ryff, adaptate pentru adolescenți au fost propuse în (Loera-Malvaez et al., 2017) si (Viejo et al., 2018). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The COVID-19 pandemic brought major disruptions at the social, economic, and psychological levels around the world. Since many schools moved from classroom-based to online education for extended periods of time, questions arose about the long-term impact of this crisis on the overall quality of the education, from the perspectives of the wellbeing of the students and teachers, and of the educational outcomes. In this study, we assume that the time spent online can be used as a measure of the changes occurred in the structure of daily life activities during the pandemic and investigate the influence of this variable on the wellbeing of the students. Also, considering the fact that the creativity is an important educational outcome, we explore the connection between the wellbeing and the creativity of the sudents. Our experiment was conducted in April, 2021, during the lockdown in Romania, when all the educational activities were carried out online, and involved a number of 98 students aged 14 to 21 years. Contrary to the common perception, our study found that the increased time spent online did not have a negative impact on the wellbeing of the subjects. This is, probably, due to the fact that all the participants in the experiment used to spend a considerable amount of time online before the lockdown. We also found that the creativity of the students is not directly influenced by the time spent online, but there are some interesting corelates between the students' wellbeing and certain factors of creativity.
... According to this model, well-being consists of fulfilling one or more of these dimensions, measured independently of each other, which are essential not only for well-being but also for fostering positive affect, the development of secure relationships, life satisfaction, and reducing the risk of mental health problems, including in young children. While the use of these dimensions is a useful and beneficial way to explore well-being, it is also true that while much has been done to depict the dimensions of well-being, there is little to no consensus in the literature on the definition of well-being [27][28][29][30]. "Well-being lacks definition, both as a concept and in practice. ...
Full-text available
Over the last 20 years, the effectiveness of positive psychology interventions for the development of the well-being of children and adolescents and the moderation of high levels of anxiety and depression in this population has been largely demonstrated. Emphasis has been placed on the promotion of well-being and prevention of mental health problems in the school context in order to foster, through positive psychology, the cognitive and socio-emotional development of primary and secondary students, e.g., by strengthening positive relationships, positive emotions, character strengths, optimism, and hope. However, little is known about the impact of these interventions on young children. This systematic review aims at examining the effects of positive psychology interventions on the well-being of early childhood children (<6 years old), both in the preschool education context with educators or teachers and also in the family context with parents. Several electronic databases were searched, and the findings systematically reviewed and reported by the PRISMA guidelines. Very few studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 3), highlighting the need for further research in this area. Indeed, all of the selected studies demonstrated the importance of positive psychology interventions with young children to promote positive aspects of development, such as gratitude, positive emotions, life satisfaction, accomplishment, positive relationship, or self-esteem. Limitations in the field are discussed.
Full-text available
Dar protagonismo a los discursos de los niños sobre su bienestar escolar, así como al de otros agentes implicados en su educación, es un recurso de gran valor en la investigación científica actual. El objetivo de este estudio es analizar las percepciones de estudiantes y docentes de Educación Primaria (etapa 6-12 años) sobre el bienestar escolar de los primeros, así como sobre los factores personales, sociales y contextuales que pueden limitarlo o fortalecerlo. A través de una metodología cualitativa, se empleó un cuestionario de preguntas abiertas con 21 estudiantes y 36 docentes de centros educativos de Galicia (noroeste de España). Los resultados reflejan la indefinición acerca de lo que supone sentirse bien en la escuela tanto para el alumnado como para el profesorado, así como la relevancia otorgada a la influencia del clima educativo (relacional, de seguridad y de aprendizaje), el compromiso escolar (dimensiones cognitiva, conductual y afectiva), las emociones (sociales y temáticas) y la continuidad/discontinuidad familia-escuela (implicación familiar, estructura flexible y recursos). Dar voz a quienes mejor conocen la realidad educativa y saben lo que realmente influye en su bienestar escolar (el alumnado) o el de sus estudiantes (el profesorado) permite identificar los elementos inhibidores o potenciadores en la institución educativa. La adopción de un punto de vista cualitativo contribuye a mejorar la comprensión del fenómeno extrayendo la información directamente de las experiencias, impresiones y valoraciones subjetiva de propios informantes.
The article is aimed at analyzing the possibilities of measuring child well-being and creating a child well-being index in Russia. It presents the materials of an empirical study that involved pilot surveys of children aged 10 to 17 (N=1942) and parents of children of the same age (N=1589) conducted in the Tambov region. The Index is based on six main areas of child well-being (domains): education, safety, health, material well-being, social relations, self-realization. The results obtained make it possible to compare the notions of parents and children about various aspects of well-being. We argue that children’s position is essential for a comprehensive assessment of child well-being, and thus interviewing children must be a necessary element in any child well-being index design.
Full-text available
Well-being, a concept so often discussed, has increasingly come to the attention of specialists and practitioners, especially during the pandemic period whose magnitude has significantly influenced the well-being of all of us. The purpose of the comparative-correlational study was to investigate the perceptions and practices of teachers in Romanian preschool education regarding their role in ensuring the well-being of preschoolers in kindergarten, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, starting from the theoretical framework that delimits the factors that influence the well-being at this age (Aulia et al., 2020; Kwi-Ok et al., 2020; Sönmez & Ceylan, 2016), we used The Scale of Self-assessment of Wellbeing - IASB (Rodawell, 2019), developed by the University of Bucharest within the Rodawell project, and The Scale of Happiness Strategies for Children Used by Preschool Teachers - HSCPT (Sapsağlam et al., 2019). The online questionnaire was answered by 149 teachers for preschool education, especially from Timiş county. The results of the study (analyzed by The Independent-Samples T-Test, ANOVA One-Way, Spearman Correlation) highlight the existence of a positive association between perceptions and practices of educators in ensuring wellbeing, but also the existence of statistically significant differences between teachers’ practices in urban vs. rural environment, in the sense that, although they perceive children’s well-being similarly, rural teachers tend to use happiness strategies more often. At the same time, teachers’ perceptions differ depending on how the teaching activity is carried out in a pandemic context: the self-perceived role and the practices dedicated to ensuring well-being are more intense in hybrid and online format than the traditional one.
Parental substance abuse is associated with adverse health and developmental outcomes for children. Existing research, however, has not fully explored the relative magnitude of the associations between maternal, paternal, and both parents' substance abuse and child outcomes, nor has it examined these associations in regard to substance abuse among nonresident fathers. We use data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (N = 3,027) to explore these issues among a cohort of 3-year-old children. We find that children living with a substance-abusing parent are at considerable risk for poor health and behavior outcomes, that such risk is not moderated by parent gender, and that it is substantially larger when both parents have substance abuse problems. Moreover, children with substance-abusing fathers are at a potentially higher risk of health and behavior problems when their fathers live with them, although this risk is still substantial when they do not.
The research was performed in Croatia, a country differing in social value system from the USA and Western European countries, to test how parental marriage stability affects a child's emotional reactions or the child's well-being. Seven hundred and seventy couples and their children were included in the study. Couples were divided into 3 groups, based on the stability of their marriage: intact (N = 234), impaired or distressed (N = 266) and divorced (N = 261). Altogether 1163 children were included in the study. Dependent variables representing child's emotional wellbeing were: mood instability and frequency of depressive symptoms. Using MANCOVA and ANCOVA statistical procedures and controlling for mother's and father's age and education and the child's age, results were obtained according to which children coming from intact families showed the highest emotional well-being. There was a significant difference in the variables representing the child's emotional well-being between children coming from intact families and those coming from impaired/distressed and divorced families, and no difference was found in emotional well-being between children coming from impaired/distresses and divorced families. Also, no significant interactions were obtained between the variables marital stability and the child's gender or the child's birth order.
David Popenoe (1988; 1993a) argues that family ''decline'' is associated with serious social consequences for child well-being, but, to date, neither he nor others have carried out a systematic empirical assessment of this linkage. The primary objective of this comparative study is to examine the relationship between family decline and child well-being in four industrialized countries: Sweden, the United States, the former West Germany, and Italy. Family decline is a composite of eight variables, and there are six indicators of child well-being. The results, taken as a whole, indicate that family decline is not necessarily associated with the kind of across-the-board deleterious outcomes for child well-being the Popenoe asserted. Although children are better off when they live in a society in which traditional family patterns are strong, when they do not, there are some things that societies can do to mitigate the negative consequences that nontraditionalism has for them.
Relative effects of membership in one of two family structures (married-never divorced vs. divorced-not remarried) and interparental conflict (high vs. low) on children's well-being (internalizing, externalizing behavior and trouble with peers) are examined for a sample of 10- to 17-year-old children and their parents from the National Survey of Families and Households (N = 618). Findings support the hypothesis that parental conflict influences children's well-being regardless of family structure. Children in high conflict families showed lower levels of well-being on all outcomes, but no well-being differences were found between family structure groups. Analyses of child gender indicated that parental warmth toward the child mediated the relationship between conflict and well-being for girls. For boys, both conflict and parental warmth were directly related to well-being independently, implications of results for theory, research and policy are discussed.
There is enormous variation in the magnitude of child support awards obtained by using state child support guidelines. This variation does not result from cost-of-living differences across states. In many states, nominal and inflation-adjusted support awards declined between 1988 and 1991. Overall, noncustodial parents do not pay a fair share of the costs of raising their children. The article advocates making larger awards, expressing awards as a percentage of income, and implementing a child support assurance program.
This study examines the interrelationship of nonresident father visitation, parental conflict over this visitation, and the mother's satisfaction with the father's visitation. We consider the prevalence and characteristics of diverse family types defined by these interrelated processes and the implications of these arrangements for child adjustment, global well-being, and behavior problems. Data come from the first wave of the National Survey of Families and Households, from mothers in households with children younger than 18 years old who had a father living elsewhere. Results show that a variety of family constellations exist. Children are least well off in families in which mothers are dissatisfied with high levels of father contact.
A sample of 492 court case records in one state was used to critique three policy goals of quantitative child support guidelines. Child support awards deviated downward from the guidelines particularly at higher income levels of obligors and upward from the guidelines at lower income levels. The court-ordered awards met 58% of the children's income needs represented by poverty level incomes. Custodial parents contributed higher proportional shares of money income to children than noncustodial parents, based on income equivalence methodology.
We take a prospective approach to examine the consequences of marital disruption for children's behavior problems and academic achievement using NLSY Child Supplement data. The analysis begins with assessments of 1,123 children whose parents' marriages are intact in 1986. By 1988 children fall into either disrupted or intact groups and their behavior and achievement are reassessed. Results show that, even before predisruption characteristics are introduced in our models, there is little effect of marital dissolution on girls. We find that negative effects of family disruption on the behavior problems scores of boys are nor reduced when prior family characteristics are controlled. In addition, the effect of disruption on boys' behavior problems can be partially attributed to downward mobility following the disruption.
Child wellbeing and income inequality in rich societies: ecological cross sectional study . Pickett K.E. & Wilkinson R.G. ( 2007 ) British Medical Journal , 335 , 1080 – 1085 . DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39377.580162.55. Objectives To examine associations between child well-being and material living standards (average income), the scale of differentiation in social status (income inequality), and social exclusion (children in relative poverty) in rich developed societies. Design Ecological, cross-sectional studies. Setting Cross-national comparisons of 23 rich countries; cross-state comparisons within the USA. Population Children and young people. Main outcome measures The United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund index of child well-being and its components for rich countries; eight comparable measures for the US states and District of Columbia (teenage births, juvenile homicides, infant mortality, low birth weight, educational performance, dropping out of high school, overweight, mental health problems). Results The overall index of child well-being was negatively correlated with income inequality (r = −0.64, P = 0.001) and percentage of children in relative poverty (r = −0.67, P = 0.001) but not with average income (r = 0.15, P = 0.50). Many more indicators of child well-being were associated with income inequality or children in relative poverty, or both, than with average incomes. Among the US states and District of Columbia all indicators were significantly worse in more unequal states. Only teenage birth rates and the proportion of children dropping out of high school were lower in richer states. Conclusions Improvements in child well-being in rich societies may depend more on reductions in inequality than on further economic growth.