Next Article in Journal
CBSI as a Social Innovation to Promote the Health of Older People in Japan
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effects of Active Video Games on Health-Related Physical Fitness and Motor Competence in Children and Adolescents with Healthy Weight: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Independent Risk Factors for Sepsis-Associated Cardiac Arrest in Patients with Septic Shock
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Systematic Review of Self-Report Instruments for the Measurement of Anxiety in Hospitalized Children with Cancer
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 9
10.3390/ijerph18094973
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Which Meso-Level Characteristics of Early Childhood Education and Care Centers Are Associated with Health, Health Behavior, and Well-Being of Young Children? Findings of a Scoping Review

by
Raphael M. Herr
1,*,
Katharina Diehl
1,
Sven Schneider
1,
Nina Osenbruegge
1,
Nicole Memmer
1,
Steffi Sachse
2,
Stephanie Hoffmann
3,
Benjamin Wachtler
4,
Max Herke
5,
Claudia R. Pischke
6,
Anna Novelli
7 and
Jennifer Hilger-Kolb
1
1
Mannheim Institute of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg University, 68167 Mannheim, Germany
2
Institute of Psychology, University of Education Heidelberg, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany
3
Department of Public Health, Brandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, 01968 Senftenberg, Germany
4
Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, 12101 Berlin, Germany
5
Institute of Medical Sociology, Medical Faculty, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, 06112 Halle, Germany
6
Institute of Medical Sociology, Center for Health and Society, Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University Duesseldorf, 40225 Duesseldorf, Germany
7
Chair of Health Economics, Technical University of Munich, 80992 Munich, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(9), 4973; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094973
Submission received: 30 March 2021 / Revised: 26 April 2021 / Accepted: 4 May 2021 / Published: 7 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Collection Review Papers in Children's Health)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Characteristics of early childhood education and care (ECEC) centers might be relevant for children’s health. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the association between meso-level characteristics (MLCs) of ECEC centers with children’s health, health behavior, and wellbeing. Five databases were searched for quantitative and qualitative research articles published in English or German since 1 January 2000 on health, health behavior, and wellbeing of children aged 0 to 6 years considering MLCs of ECEC centers. Two authors screened 10,396 potentially eligible manuscripts and identified 117 papers, including 3077 examinations of the association between MLCs and children’s health indicators (Kappas > 0.91). Five categories of MLCs were identified: (1) structural characteristics, (2) equipment/furnishings, (3) location, (4) facilities/environment, (5) culture/activities/policies/practices, and 6) staff. Only very few studies found an association of MLCs with body weight/obesity, and general health and wellbeing. Especially physical activity and mental health were related to MLCs. In general, the location (rural vs. urban, neighborhood status) seemed to be a relevant health aspect. MLCs of ECEC centers appeared relevant for child health indicators to different degrees. Future research should focus on these associations, in detail, to identify concrete ECEC indicators that can support health promotion in early childhood.

1. Introduction

An increasing number of children in economically developed countries are attending early childhood education and care (ECEC) facilities, such as childcare and daycare centers, family childcare homes, kindergartens, nurseries, and preschools [1]. In addition to the family as the primary agent of socialization, ECEC centers are the most important agent of socialization for the group of children in the preschool age [2] because children spend a considerable amount of time every day at these facilities. In ECEC centers, children make friends, eat together up to four meals per day, are physically active indoors and outdoors, and are in contact with peers from different social backgrounds (e.g., socioeconomic position of the family). Responsibilities of ECEC also include to maintain and promote the health of children in their care [3]. Attendance to ECEC has been found to be very beneficial for health, wellbeing and mental development for children [4,5]. However, it is not compulsory in some countries.
The theoretical framework for investigating the role of ECEC centers in the health of children aged 0–6 is provided by the social-ecological model established in the field of Public Health [6]. According to this framework, the concept of health is multifaceted and ranges from health-related behavior, such as physical activity and nutrition, to physical and mental health. ECEC centers are located at the meso-level, meaning between micro (the individual) and the macro (the society) level. The framework supports the assumption that characteristics of these meso-level characteristics (MLCs) are responsible for differences in the individual health, health behavior, and wellbeing of children [7]. Knowledge on the characteristics influencing health could help develop a health promoting environment, for instance, by architectural planning, the selection of equipment, interior design, and pedagogical training of personnel. For example, it is conceivable that the children will exercise to a higher amount if they have the opportunity, such as through a large outdoor area or animating equipment, or eat healthier if the employees are specially trained in nutrition.
MLCs include contextual and compositional aspects of ECEC centers. While contextual characteristics describe the structural conditions of an institution (e.g., equipment, location), compositional features (e.g., gender ratio, age ratio, proportion of children with immigrant background) merely represent aggregated information about the children attending the institution [8].
In order to be able to make general conclusions, it is necessary to summarize the individual characteristics into groups of MLCs. Contextual influences on physical activity, for example, can be grouped into physical, economic, political, and socio-cultural environments [9]. For ECEC centers, we assume that the relevant categories will be the following: structural characteristics, equipment/furnishings, the location of ECEC center (e.g., urban vs. rural region), facilities/environment, and culture and practices of the center.
To date, no comprehensive review that gives an overview on the association between children’s health and MLCs of ECEC centers exists [10]. Therefore, the aim of this review was to summarize which MLCs of ECEC centers are associated with health, health behavior, and wellbeing in children aged 0-6. In addition, we aimed to identify studies that further elucidate whether MLCs mediate or moderate the association between family’s socioeconomic position (SEP) and health in this age group. In view of the complexity of both, the characteristics at the meso-level and the health outcomes at the micro level, we decided to perform a scoping review to capture the current and comprehensive state of quantitative and qualitative research [11].

2. Materials and Methods

This scoping review follows the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) Statement [12]. Ethical approval was not necessary because we only reviewed published manuscripts. The review was registered at Prospero (CRD42020161099) and the protocol was published recently [10].

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

To address the objectives of this scoping review, studies were included if they focused on health behavior, health, and wellbeing of children aged 0 to 6 years and took MLCs of ECEC centers into account. All manuscripts published in English or German since 1 January 2000 were considered for inclusion. Following the characteristics of scoping reviews, we included quantitative (cross-sectional, cohort, prospective, and case–control studies, as well as baseline data from intervention studies) and qualitative studies. We only included articles of studies that were conducted in economically developed countries (according to the United Nations classification) [13]. A detailed description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria and their respective rationales is presented in Table A1 and has been published previously [10].

2.2. Information Sources

We used PubMed/Medline, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), and The Cochrane Library as databases for our literature search. The search took place on 2 December 2019.

2.3. Search Strategy

As described in our review protocol, the search strategy was first developed for PubMed/Medline and then adapted to the other databases [10]. Search terms were based on the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) Thesaurus and complemented with additional relevant free-text terms. For example, we included search terms such as: pre-school*[Title/Abstract], kindergarten*[Title/Abstract], context[Title/Abstract], meso-level[Title/Abstract], caregivers[MeSH]), Pre-School Teacher[Title/Abstract], child-teacher relationship[Title/Abstract], classroom size[Title/Abstract], quality of care[Title/Abstract], playground[Title/Abstract], health[MeSH], quality of life[MeSH], dietary intake[Title/Abstract], meal times[Title/Abstract], physical activity[Title/Abstract], wellbeing[Title/Abstract]. The full search strategy can be found elsewhere [10].

2.4. Selection of Sources of Evidence

After discarding duplicates, 10,396 potentially eligible manuscripts were found (Figure 1). First, title and abstract were screened, which yielded 127 manuscripts potentially eligible for inclusion in the review. The references of these manuscripts were screened as well (“snowballing”), yielding an additional 47 potentially eligible manuscripts. Second, these 174 manuscripts were reviewed in detail (full-text screening). Both selection steps were conducted independently by two reviewers (JH-K and KD), resulting in an excellent inter-rater agreement (first step: agreement = 99.9%, Cohen’s Kappa = 0.95; second step: agreement = 96.6%, Cohen’s Kappa = 0.91) [14]. In total, 117 manuscripts were included into this scoping review. Based on the 117 included studies, a total of 3077 examinations of the associations between MLCs of ECEC centers with children’s health, health behavior, and wellbeing were extracted and considered in our analysis.

2.5. Data Charting

Each study included in this scoping review was charted, using a standardized data extraction form, that had been tested by the team in previous studies [16,17]. Five of the authors charted data independently (RH, JH-K, NO, NM, KD). In addition, we conducted a double extraction of 5% of all included articles to ensure high data quality.

2.6. Data Items and Synthesis of Results

Data analysis and summary were conducted in three steps. First, a descriptive summary in the form of a table was created, including the following main data items of each included manuscript: author and year of publication, country of origin, study type and size, sample age, outcome main category, number of extracted examinations, and whether family SEP was reported (Table 1). In addition, we created figures to give an overview over the number of manuscripts dealing with the respective dependent variables (i.e., health, health behavior, and wellbeing) and the respective independent variables (i.e., contextual and compositional variables at ECEC center level). To be able to do this, we classified the independent variables into the following categories:
  • Structural characteristics of ECEC center: e.g., amount of time in the institution, size of institution/groups/classroom, children to staff ratio, group composition/structure.
  • Equipment/furnishings of ECEC center: e.g., fixed or mobile physical activity (outdoor, indoor) equipment/play environment, playground features (e.g., presence of sand pits, paddling pools, jumping equipment, slides, etc.).
  • Location of ECEC center: e.g., urban vs. rural region, neighborhood SEP of institution.
  • Facilities/environment of ECEC center: e.g., space (playground), noise, shadow, ventilation, years in operation.
  • Culture/activities/policies/practices of ECEC center: e.g., time outside, health promotion activities, weather clothing policies, TV time, hygiene.
  • Staff in ECEC center: e.g., competencies, educational level, specific training, attitudes, role model behavior, personality, teaching style, teacher-child-interaction, age, years in institution/childcare, BMI, race/ethnicity.
  • Others.
In addition, we grouped the dependent variables into the following categories: (1) physical activity/sedentary behavior, (2) nutrition behavior, (3) physical health/development, (4) mental health/development, (5) body weight/obesity, (6) general health/wellbeing, and others.
In a second step, we mapped the evidence identified for associations between the respective dependent and independent variable categories by creating a graphical illustration depicting the kind of association (yes vs. no). The third step focused on whether SEP was considered and whether SEP had an influence.

3. Results

In the 117 included studies, 3077 examinations of the association between MLCs of ECEC centers with children’s health, health behavior, and wellbeing were identified. Culture of the ECEC center was the MLC most often examined (31%, n = 988, Figure 2), followed by structural characteristics of the ECEC center (23%, n = 726) and facilities/environment of the ECEC center (19%, n = 599). Potential associations with staff (13%, n = 422), equipment (9%, n = 281) and the location of the ECEC center (5%, n = 173) were least often studied.
Figure 3 specifies the frequency of the examined child health, health behavior, and wellbeing indicators of the included studies. The most often examined outcome was physical activity (38%, n = 1188), followed by mental health and development (20%, n = 616), physical health and development (18%, n = 558), and nutrition (15%, n = 455). Body weight/obesity (4%, n = 137), and general health/wellbeing (2%, n = 45) were studied least frequently.
Figure 4 presents the associations between early ECEC centers MLCs and the health, health behavior, and wellbeing of the children.
Physical activity of the children was most often examined in relation to the facilities of the ECEC (398 examinations), followed by the culture of the ECEC center (265 examinations), the equipment (244 examinations), the staff (156 examinations), and the structural characteristics of the ECEC center (131 examinations). Most often, an association was reported for the location (64% of 72 examinations), followed by the structural characteristics (56% of 131 examinations), the facilities (50% of 398 examinations), and the equipment (46% of 244 examinations). Associations with physical activity were found less often with the staff (33% of 156 examinations) and the culture (31% of 265 examinations) of the ECEC center.
Regarding the nutrition behavior of the children, the culture and the staff of the ECEC center was examined most frequently (198, and 161 examinations, respectively). The structural characteristics of the ECEC center was examined 63 times, the location 13, and the facilities 8 times. No study investigated the relation of the ECEC center equipment with nutrition behavior of the children. The most frequent association was found for the ECEC center structural characteristics (41% of 63 examinations). For staff, 28% of 161 examinations found an association, for facilities, it was 25%, and for culture 24%. For location, none of the 13 examinations reported an association with nutrition behavior.
The relationship between physical health and development and MLCs was studied 218 times for culture, 135 times for structural characteristics, 114 times for facilities, and far less often for location (55 times), staff (21 times), and equipment (19 times). The most frequent relation was found for location with 93% of the reported 55 associations. For ECEC center structural characteristics, 46% of 135 investigations reported a relation to physical health and development, followed by staff (38% of 21 examinations), culture (23% of 218 examinations), equipment (16% of 19 examinations), and only 8% of 114 examinations found an association with the facilities of the ECEC center.
The most frequently studied ECEC center determinant for mental health and development was structural characteristics of the institution (320 examinations). Culture was investigated 217 times, and staff, facilities, equipment, and location less frequently (49, 29, 5, and 4 times, respectively). Except for the ECEC center characteristics, that were examined very rarely (4-5 examinations) and reported a high frequency of associations (location 100%, equipment 60%), for staff, facilities, and culture the prevalence for an association was between 35 to 47%. For structural characteristics of ECEC centers, only 28% of the examinations found an association.
The association of body weight and obesity in children with the ECEC center characteristics were generally examined less frequently. Most often with culture and structural characteristics (41 examinations), followed by staff (20 examinations), facilities (19 examinations), equipment (11 examinations), and location (7 examinations). The number of associations was also limited, ranging from 20% for staff to 9% for equipment.
General health and wellbeing were also rarely examined in their association with ECEC center characteristics. No study investigated the association with equipment or the location. Three associations were examined with structural characteristics, five with staff, and eight with facilities. The relation with ECEC center culture reached 27 examinations, with only one quarter reporting an association.
The SEP was considered in 33 of the 117 included studies (28%). Of these, five studies (4% of total) reported an association or moderation between family SEP-indicators at the family level (e.g., household income, education of parents/mothers) with different MLCs at the ECEC center level, such as physical activity, naptimes, social behavior, impulsivity, or learning skills (Table A2). One study tested a potential moderation of SEP [29], and no study examined the role of MLCs on the association of SEP with health outcomes.

4. Discussion

This scoping review aimed to identify and synthesize findings on the association of MLCs of ECEC centers with health, health behavior, and wellbeing of children. 117 studies were included, yielding 3077 examinations. Regarding the diverse outcome indicators, a differentiated picture of the relevance of specific ECEC center characteristics for children’s health was found.
For physical activity/sedentary behavior, the location, the structural characteristics, the facilities, and the equipment of the ECEC centers appeared most relevant. However, for equipment, fewer than 50% of the examinations found an association (46%), albeit equipment, such as fixed or mobile physical activity equipment and playground features, could be regarded as a basic requirement for physical activity. The location was more relevant, indicating that whether an ECEC center was in an urban or rural neighborhood or the neighborhood SEP might be the most important meso-level factor for the physical activity of the children as identified by this review. A rural neighborhood, or a neighborhood with higher SEP, can be meaningful because there is a higher level of road safety, more outdoor space, and access to safe and bigger playgrounds [21,41,50]. However, and as also found by a previous literature review on physical activity and sedentary time in center-based childcare [133], a big variation in the measurement, reporting and degree of physical activity and sedentary time exits between studies, which might bias results.
For nutrition behavior, this review reveals that the location was most relevant, as all observations found an association of the location of the ECEC center with nutrition behavior. However, this association was investigated by only few examinations (13 times). The location of the ECEC center might be relevant for the children’s nutrition because children in socio-economically disadvantaged areas eat less vegetables and ECECs center in rural areas provide more vegetables [70]. Second most relevant was the structural characteristics of the ECEC center, but only 41% of the examinations found an association. The structural characteristics category comprises aspects such as childcare attendance, the children/staff ratio, the childcare type, or mixing ages within a childcare group. Even fewer investigations reported an association of nutrition behavior with ECEC center staff, facilities, or culture, despite these categories comprising aspects, such as staff eating the same lunch or the existence of a food program. Regarding potential interventions to increase healthy eating, a systematic review found that the consumption of fruits and vegetables could be influenced by healthy eating interventions, while effects on anthropometric change were inconclusive [134]. The study concluded that a single exposure strategy appears insufficient and that there needs to be an education component as well. By contrast, another review came to the conclusion that the influence of specific components of educators’ practices on children’s healthy eating remains inconclusive [135].
For physical health and development, the most frequent association was found for the location of the ECEC center (93% of the observations reported an association). Structural characteristics and staff were also more relevant, while few or very few associations with culture, equipment or facilities were reported. Especially the environment of the ECEC centers with aspects, such as size and quality of play area and the number and availability of play equipment, appeared less relevant for physical health and the development of the children.
For mental health and development of the children, staff, facilities, and culture appeared most important. However, only for equipment and location the number of observations found a relation in over 50% of the examinations and these categories were investigated very rarely (4 and 5 observations). For structural characteristics and culture most observations found no association with mental health/development of the children (65%, and 72%, respectively). Thus, according to our review, aspects, such as size or education type of ECEC center, as well as special programs or routines, seemed to have limited relevance for children’s mental health and development. However, another review found full-day kindergartens, compared with half-day kindergartens, to improve academic achievement and lifelong health, especially for children from lower SEP families [136]. By contrast, other reviews found very few associations between the child-staff ratios and staff education in preschool ECEC programs with children’s development [137,138]. In consequence, a heterogeneity not only among single studies, but also among review articles exits.
For body weight and obesity, the ECEC center characteristics appeared to have little relevance: for all categories, most observations found no association (between 85% and 91%). This indicates that the ECEC center’s role on children’s obesity might be limited. ECEC center measures, such as size of play area, the quality of the environment, time spent outdoor, staff participation in physical activity, and food programs seems to be helpful to a limited extent only. In general, childcare has not been reported to be protective for obesity [139].
For general health and wellbeing associations with ECEC center characteristics were also rather weak and seldomly examined. Further studies might investigate this relation in greater detail, applying particular instruments to assess the general health of young children.
Previous social epidemiology research found that child health is related to parental SEP [140]: Health behavior, prevalence of diseases, physical and mental health, wellbeing and other health outcomes were found to be poorer in children from socially disadvantaged families [141]. This raises the question, whether MLCs might mediate or moderate existing or emerging health inequalities. In this review, SEP was considered in only very few studies: Of these, only one study tested a potential moderation, while no study examined the role of MLCs with regard to the association of SEP with health outcomes. Further studies should try to close this research gap and map possible ways to alleviate health inequalities, as MLCs of ECEC centers might affect health, health behavior, and wellbeing above and beyond the individual-level. Changing these factors at the early childcare-level could be a strategy to reduce childhood health inequalities, as for young children (aged 0-6 years), ECEC centers are, next to families, the most important agents of socialization. From the perspective if life course epidemiology, early intervention via institutional factors could have a strong influence on future health inequalities over the life course.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study

This study is the first systematic examination of the relevant research question whether MLCs of ECEC centers are associated with health, health behavior, and wellbeing of young children. However, some limitations have to be reported. A source of bias of this scoping review might be the varying weight of the different studies. From some studies, only one examination was extracted, while for others, many more examinations were extracted (i.e., up to 182 observations from the study of Loeb and colleagues [78]). It is, therefore, conceivable that some large studies might distort results in one direction and overemphasize some aspects, such as the location. Another limitation is the lack of comparability of the included studies, as the MLCs might differ by country and culture and different survey instruments were used to measure same aspects. In order not to widen the focus, any additional studies from economically developing countries and studies that were not published in German or English were excluded. However, it was our aim to include a wide range of studies from various countries and with different study designs, which is the nature of a scoping review. In addition, the structural characteristics of ECEC were highly variable. Among the studies included were both more traditional kindergartens with different lengths of care time and structured day care, as well as numerous other forms of institutionalized care. This might explain the different results, as the form of care might have different effects on health (e.g., on the diet of the children). Beside the broad scope of the review, another strength is that for quality reasons five percent of all studies were extracted twice and combined.

5. Conclusions

The results of this scoping review suggest that ECEC center characteristics are relevant for child health indicators to different degrees and reveals promising approaches for further research which appears vital to tackle health inequalities already in the first years of life. This review confirms the association of specific meso-level ECEC center characteristics with health, health behavior, and wellbeing. In addition, it provides information regarding which aspects at the meso-level account for this relationship. While only very few studies reported an association of MLCs with body weight/obesity, general health, and wellbeing, physical activity and mental health were related to MLCs. For physical activity the MLCs structural characteristics and location played an important role. Besides the location, the equipment was also associated with mental health/development of the children. In this context, the role of the SEP has mostly been insufficiently investigated in previous studies. When designing ECEC environments and planning prevention and intervention measures, this scoping review can help identify factors contributing to preschoolers’ health, health behavior, and wellbeing.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.H.-K., K.D., S.S. (Sven Schneider) and R.M.H.; methodology, J.H.-K. and K.D.; formal analysis, J.H.-K., K.D., N.O., N.M., and R.M.H.; writing—original draft preparation, K.D., N.M., S.S. (Sven Schneider), and R.M.H.; writing—review and editing, R.M.H., K.D., S.S. (Sven Schneider), N.O., N.M., S.S. (Steffi Sachse), S.H., B.W., M.H., C.R.P., A.N., and J.H.-K.; visualization, K.D., N.M., and R.M.H.; supervision, K.D. and S.S. (Sven Schneider); project administration, R.M.H.; funding acquisition, S.S. (Sven Schneider). All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) grant number FOR2723 (project number 384210238). The individual grant number for the subproject is: SCHN727/9-1. The funding organization had no role in the design, analysis and interpretation of the data, in writing the manuscript or to submit the manuscript for publication.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank Julia Weiss for her support in preparing the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table
Table A1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table A1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.
IncludedExcluded
Study designs► Cross-sectional studies► Case studies
► Cohort studies► Cell studies
► Prospective studies► Reviews
► Case–control studies► Author replies/comments
► Qualitative studies► Animal studies
► Intervention studies (only baseline data)
Populations► Children aged 0-6 years attending an early childcare facility► Children aged 0-6 years not attending an early childcare facility
► Patient samples (children with specific conditions/diseases)
► Older age groups (e.g., school children, adolescents, adults, elderly people)
Factors of interestCompositional characteristics at the early childcare-level:Compositional characteristics outside the early childcare- level:
► Gender► At the family level
► Age► In the home environment
► Immigrant background► In other institutions (e.g., in schools)
► Language skills
► Socioeconomic position
► Parental commitment
Contextual characteristics at the early childcare level:Contextual characteristics outside the early childcare-level:
► Location of childcare facility► At the family level
► Type of childcare facility► In the home environment
► Childcare facility size► In other institutions (e.g., in schools)
► Group size
► Duration of childcare (full-time, half-time)
► Teacher/child ratio
► Staff characteristics (e.g., number, age, sex, migration background, qualification)
► Toys/playing equipment
► Financial resources
► Opportunities for PA (e.g., sport rooms, outdoor area, playground)
► Equipment for PA
► Integration of PA in daily routines
► Projects that promote PA
► Resources for healthy eating
► Cooking facilities
► Lunch/other meals offered
► Food quality
► Free access to water/food
► Nutrition rules (e.g., lunch box content)
► Projects that promote healthy eating
Outcomes► Health outcomes (e.g., self-rated health, physical health, mental health)
► Health behavior (e.g., nutrition, PA sedentary behavior, media consumption, passive smoke exposure)
► Other health-related outcomes (e.g., obesity, wellbeing, quality of life)
Regions/countries► Developed countries► Developing countries
► Countries in transition
Languages► English► All other languages
► German
Table
Table A2. Reported associations or moderations between family SEP with outcomes at the ECEC center level.
Table A2. Reported associations or moderations between family SEP with outcomes at the ECEC center level.
Key Findings
Household income was positively and significantly related to child’s BMI [94].
The higher the mother’s education, the less is the screen time of the child during child care [117].
Education of mother is correlated with impulsivity, re-reading skills, and pre-math skills [104].
Parental education level was significantly different across naptime groups: education level was higher in the 0–60 min group than in the <60min groups (maybe an effect of the different program types) [111].
Children of higher SEP families showed more positively adaptive behaviors compared with low- SEP peers.High SEP was negatively related to depression, inattention, externalizing, and positively to peer relationships, academic competence, and prosocial behavior.Family SEP moderated the association of social position with adaptive child outcomes. Specifically, family SES significantly moderated the relation between rank and prosociality, with subordinate, low-SES children having the lowest levels of prosocial behavior [29].

References

  1. OECD. Education Today 2010: The OECD Perspective; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  2. European Commission. Proposal for Key Principles of a Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education and Care; Report of the Working Group on Early Childhood Education and Care under the auspices of the European Commission Directorate; European Commission: Bruxelles, Belgium, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bower, J.K.; Hales, D.P.; Tate, D.F.; Rubin, D.A.; Benjamin, S.E.; Ward, D.S. The Childcare Environment and Children’s Physical Activity. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2008, 34, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Melhuish, E.; Ereky-Stevens, K.; Petrogiannis, K.; Ariescu, A.; Penderi, E.; Rentzou, K.; Tawell, A.; Slot, P.; Broekhuizen, M.; Leseman, P. A review of Research on the Effects of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) Upon Child Development; University of Oxford: Oxford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  5. Melhuish, E. The impact of early childhood education and care on improved wellbeing. In If You Could Do One Thing. Nine Local Actions to Reduce Health Inequalities; British Academy: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  6. Blum, R.W.; Bastos, F.I.; Kabiru, C.W.; Le, L.C. Adolescent health in the 21st century. Lancet 2012, 379, 1567–1568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Cosco, N.G.; Moore, R.C.; Islam, M.Z. Behavior Mapping. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2010, 42, 513–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Duncan, C.; Jones, K.; Moon, G. Context, composition and heterogeneity: Using multilevel models in health research. Soc. Sci. Med. 1998, 46, 97–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Schneider, S.; Diehl, K.; Görig, T.; Schilling, L.; De Bock, F.; Hoffmann, K.; Albrecht, M.; Sonntag, D.; Fischer, J. Contextual influences on physical activity and eating habits -options for action on the community level. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Hilger-Kolb, J.; Schneider, S.; Herr, R.; Osenbruegge, N.; Hoffmann, S.; Herke, M.; Pischke, C.; Sundmacher, L.; Diehl, K. Associations between contextual and compositional characteristics of early childcare facilities with health, health behaviors and well-being among young children aged 06 years: Protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open 2020, 10, e037038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Arksey, H.; O’Malley, L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 2005, 8, 19–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Nation, U. World Economic Situation and Prospects; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2019.
  14. Landis, J.R.; Koch, G.G. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data. Biometrics 1977, 33, 159–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G.; The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Hilger, J.; Friedel, A.; Herr, R.; Rausch, T.; Roos, F.; Wahl, D.A.; Pierroz, D.D.; Weber, P.; Hoffmann, K. A systematic review of vitamin D status in populations worldwide. Br. J. Nutr. 2014, 111, 23–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Hilger-Kolb, J.; Bosle, C.; Motoc, I.; Hoffmann, K. Associations between dietary factors and obesity-related biomarkers in healthy children and adolescents: A systematic review. Nutr. J. 2017, 16, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Alexandrino, A.S.; Santos, R.; Melo, C.; Bastos, J.M. Risk factors for respiratory infections among children attending day care centres. Fam. Pr. 2016, 33, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Alkon, A.; Ragland, D.R.; Tschann, J.M.; Genevro, J.L.; Kaiser, P.; Boyce, W.T. Injuries in childcare centers: Gender-environment interactions. Inj. Prev. 2000, 6, 214–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Andreyeva, T.; Kenney, E.L.; O’Connell, M.; Sun, X.; Henderson, K.E. Predictors of Nutrition Quality in Early Child Education Settings in Connecticut. J. Nutr. Educ. Behav. 2018, 50, 458–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Arhab, A.; Messerli-Bürgy, N.; Kakebeeke, T.H.; Lanzi, S.; Stülb, K.; Zysset, A.E.; Leeger-Aschmann, C.S.; Schmutz, E.A.; Meyer, A.H.; Munsch, S.; et al. Childcare Correlates of Physical Activity, Sedentary Behavior, and Adiposity in Preschool Children: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of the SPLASHY Study. J. Environ. Public Health 2018, 2018, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Barandiaran, A.; Muela, A.; De Arana, E.L.; Larrea, I.; Vitoria, J.R. Conducta de exploración, bienestar emocional y calidad del cuidado en educación infantil. An. Psicol. 2015, 31, 570–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Barbosa-Cesnik, C.; Farjo, R.S.; Patel, M.; Gilsdorf, J.; McCoy, S.I.; Pettigrew, M.M.; Marrs, C.; Foxman, B. Predictors for Haemophilus influenzae Colonization, Antibiotic Resistance and for Sharing an Identical Isolate Among Children Attending 16 Licensed Day-Care Centers in Michigan. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. J. 2006, 25, 219–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bell, A.C.; Finch, M.; Wolfenden, L.; Fitzgerald, M.; Morgan, P.J.; Jones, J.; Freund, M.; Wiggers, J. Child physical activity levels and associations with modifiable characteristics in center-based childcare. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 2015, 39, 232–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Belsky, J.; Vandell, D.L.; Burchinal, M.; Clarke-Stewart, K.A.; McCartney, K.; Owen, M.T. The NICHD Early Child Care Research Network Are There Long-Term Effects of Early Child Care? Child Dev. 2007, 78, 681–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Blaine, R.E.; Davison, K.K.; Hesketh, K.; Taveras, E.M.; Gillman, M.W.; Neelon, S.E.B. Child Care Provider Adherence to Infant and Toddler Feeding Recommendations: Findings from the Baby Nutrition and Physical Activity Self-Assessment for Child Care (Baby NAP SACC) Study. Child. Obes. 2015, 11, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Boldemann, C.; Blennow, M.; Dal, H.; Mårtensson, F.; Raustorp, A.; Yuen, K.; Wester, U. Impact of preschool environment upon children’s physical activity and sun exposure. Prev. Med. 2006, 42, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bornstein, M.H.; Hahn, C.; Gist, N.F.; Haynes, O.M. Long-term cumulative effects of childcare on children’s mental development and socioemotional adjustment in a non-risk sample: The moderating effects of gender. Early Child Dev. Care 2006, 176, 129–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Boyce, W.T.; Obradović, J.; Bush, N.R.; Stamperdahl, J.; Kim, Y.S.; Adler, N. Social stratification, classroom climate, and the behavioral adaptation of kindergarten children. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 17168–17173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Brown, W.H.; Pfeiffer, K.A.; McIver, K.L.; Dowda, M.; Addy, C.L.; Pate, R.R. Social and Environmental Factors Associated with Preschoolers’ Nonsedentary Physical Activity. Child Dev. 2009, 80, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Burchinal, M.; Vandergrift, N.; Pianta, R.; Mashburn, A. Threshold analysis of association between childcare quality and child outcomes for low-income children in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Child. Res. Q. 2010, 25, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Byun, W.; Blair, S.N.; Pate, R.R. Objectively measured sedentary behavior in preschool children: Comparison between Montessori and traditional preschools. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2013, 10, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Campbell, J.J.; Lamb, M.E.; Hwang, C.P. Early Child-Care Experiences and Children’s Social Competence Between 11/2 and 15 Years of Age. Appl. Dev. Sci. 2000, 4, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cardon, G.; Van Cauwenberghe, E.; Labarque, V.; Haerens, L.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I. The contribution of preschool playground factors in explaining children’s physical activity during recess. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2008, 5, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Carreiro-Martins, P.; Viegas, J.; Papoila, A.L.; Aelenei, D.; Caires, I.; Araújo-Martins, J.; Gaspar-Marques, J.; Cano, M.M.; Mendes, A.S.; Virella, D.; et al. CO2 concentration in day care centers is related to wheezing in attending children. Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging 2014, 173, 1041–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Christian, H.; Lester, L.; Trost, S.G.; Trapp, G.; Schipperijn, J.; Boruff, B.; Maitland, C.; Jeemi, Z.; Rosenberg, M.; Barber, P.; et al. Shade coverage, ultraviolet radiation and children’s physical activity in early childhood education and care. Int. J. Public Health 2019, 64, 1325–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Coleman, B.; Dyment, J. Factors that limit and enable preschool-aged children’s physical activity on childcare centre playgrounds. J. Early Child. Res. 2013, 11, 203–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Copeland, K.A.; Khoury, J.C.; Kalkwarf, H.J. Child Care Center Characteristics Associated with Preschoolers’ Physical Activity. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2016, 50, 470–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. De Decker, E.; De Craemer, M.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Wijndaele, K.; Duvinage, K.; Androutsos, O.; Iotova, V.; Lateva, M.; Alvira, J.M.F.; Zych, K.; et al. Influencing Factors of Sedentary Behavior in European Preschool Settings: An Exploration Through Focus Groups with Teachers. J. Sch. Health 2013, 83, 654–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. De Schipper, J.; Tavecchio, L.W.; Van Ijzendoorn, M.H.; Linting, M. The relation of flexible childcare to quality of center day care and children’s socio-emotional functioning: A survey and observational study. Infant Behav. Dev. 2003, 26, 300–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. De Craemer, M.; De Decker, E.; Verloigne, M.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Manios, Y.; Cardon, G. The effect of a kindergarten-based, family-involved intervention on objectively measured physical activity in Belgian preschool boys and girls of high and low SES: The ToyBox-study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Dettling, A.C.; Parker, S.W.; Lane, S.; Sebanc, A.; Gunnar, M.R. Quality of care and temperament determine changes in cortisol concentrations over the day for young children in childcare. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2000, 25, 819–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Deynoot-Schaub, M.G.; Riksen-Walraven, J.M. Peer interaction in childcare centres at 15 and 23 months: Stability and links with children’s socio-emotional adjustment. Infant Behav. Dev. 2006, 29, 276–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Dinkel, D.; Snyder, K.; Patterson, T.; Warehime, S.; Kuhn, M.; Wisneski, D. An exploration of infant and toddler unstructured outdoor play. Eur. Early Child. Educ. Res. J. 2019, 27, 257–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Dörr, C.S.; Bock, C.; Fischer, J.E.; De Bock, F. Preschools’ Friendliness toward Physical Activity. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2014, 46, 593–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dowda, M.; Pate, R.R.; Trost, S.G.; Almeida, M.J.C.A.; Sirard, J.R. Influences of preschool policies and practices on children’s physical activity. J. Community Health 2004, 29, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Dowda, M.; Brown, W.H.; McIver, K.L.; Pfeiffer, K.A.; O’Neill, J.R.; Addy, C.L.; Pate, R.R. Policies and Characteristics of the Preschool Environment and Physical Activity of Young Children. Pediatrics 2009, 123, e261–e266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Dyment, J.; Coleman, B. The Intersection of Physical Activity Opportunities and the Role of Early Childhood Educators during Outdoor Play: Perceptions and Reality. Australas. J. Early Child. 2012, 37, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Eichinger, M.; Schneider, S.; De Bock, F. Subjectively and objectively assessed social and physical environmental correlates of preschoolers’ accelerometer-based physical activity. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2017, 14, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Eichinger, M.; Schneider, S.; De Bock, F. Subjectively and Objectively Assessed Behavioral, Social, and Physical Environmental Correlates of Sedentary Behavior in Preschoolers. J. Pediatr. 2018, 199, 71–78.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ek, A.; Sandborg, J.; Nyström, C.D.; Lindqvist, A.K.; Rutberg, S.; Löf, M. Physical Activity and Mobile Phone Apps in the Preschool Age: Perceptions of Teachers and Parents. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2019, 7, e12512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Enserink, R.; Mughini-Gras, L.; Duizer, E.; Kortbeek, T.; Van Pelt, W. Risk factors for gastroenteritis in child day care. Epidemiol. Infect. 2015, 143, 2707–2720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Erinosho, T.; Hales, D.; Vaughn, A.; Mazzucca, S.; Ward, D.S. Impact of Policies on Physical Activity and Screen Time Practices in 50 Child-Care Centers in North Carolina. J. Phys. Act. Health 2016, 13, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fossdal, T.S.; Kippe, K.; Handegård, B.H.; Lagestad, P. “Oh oobe doo, I wanna be like you” associations between physical activity of preschool staff and preschool children. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0208001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Frenkel, H.; Tandon, P.; Frumkin, H.; Stoep, A.V. Illnesses and Injuries at Nature Preschools. Environ. Behav. 2018, 51, 936–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Gagné, C.; Harnois, I. The contribution of psychosocial variables in explaining preschoolers’ physical activity. Health Psychol. 2013, 32, 657–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Goto, M.; Yamamoto, Y.; Saito, R.; Fujino, Y.; Ueno, S.; Kusuhara, K. The effect of environmental factors in childcare facilities and individual lifestyle on obesity among Japanese preschool children; a multivariate multilevel analysis. Medicine 2019, 98, e17490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Olesen, L.G.; Kristensen, P.L.; Korsholm, L.; Koch, A.B.; Froberg, K. Correlates of objectively meas-ured physical activity in 5-6-year-old preschool children. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fit. 2015, 55, 513–526. [Google Scholar]
  59. Gubbels, J.S.; Kremers, S.P.J.; Stafleu, A.; Dagnelie, P.C.; De Vries, N.K.; Van Buuren, S.; Thijs, C. Child-care use and the association with body mass index and overweight in children from 7 months to 2 years of age. Int. J. Obes. 2010, 34, 1480–1486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Gubbels, J.S.; Kremers, S.P.J.; Van Kann, D.H.H.; Stafleu, A.; Candel, M.J.J.M.; Dagnelie, P.C.; Thijs, C.; De Vries, N.K. Interaction between physical environment, social environment, and child characteristics in determining physical activity at childcare. Health Psychol. 2011, 30, 84–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Gubbels, J.S.; Van Kann, D.H.H.; Jansen, M.W.J. Play Equipment, Physical Activity Opportunities, and Children’s Activity Levels at Childcare. J. Environ. Public Health 2012, 2012, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Gubbels, J.S.; Gerards, S.M.; Kremers, S.P. Use of Food Practices by Childcare Staff and the Association with Dietary Intake of Children at Childcare. Nutrients 2015, 7, 2161–2175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Gubbels, J.S.; Van Kann, D.H.H.; Cardon, G.; Kremers, S.P.J. Activating Childcare Environments for All Children: The Importance of Children’s Individual Needs. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Henderson, K.E.; Grode, G.M.; O’Connell, M.L.; Schwartz, M.B. Environmental factors associated with physical activity in childcare centers. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2015, 12, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Hesketh, K.R.; Van Sluijs, E.M. Features of the UK childcare environment and associations with preschooler’s in-care physical activity. Prev. Med. Rep. 2016, 3, 53–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Himberg-Sundet, A.; Kristiansen, A.L.; Bjelland, M.; Moser, T.; Holthe, A.; Andersen, L.F.; Lien, N. Is the environment in kindergarten associated with the vegetables served and eaten? The BRA Study. Scand. J. Public Health 2017, 47, 538–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Hinkley, T.; Salmon, J.; Crawford, D.; Okely, A.D.; Hesketh, K.D. Preschool and childcare center characteristics associated with children’s physical activity during care hours: An observational study. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2016, 13, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Hoffmann, S.W.; Tug, S.; Simon, P. Child-caregivers’ body weight and habitual physical activity status is associated with overweight in kindergartners. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Hughes, S.O.; Patrick, H.; Power, T.G.; Fisher, J.O.; Anderson, C.B.; Nicklas, T.A. The Impact of Child Care Providers’ Feeding on Children’s Food Consumption. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 2007, 28, 100–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Jones, J.; Wyse, R.; Wiggers, J.; Yoong, S.L.; Finch, M.; Lecathelinais, C.; Fielding, A.; Clinton-McHarg, T.; Hollis, J.; Seward, K.; et al. Dietary intake and physical activity levels of children attending Australian childcare services. Nutr. Diet. 2017, 74, 446–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Kharofa, R.Y.; Kalkwarf, H.J.; Khoury, J.C.; Copeland, K.A. Are Mealtime Best Practice Guidelines for Child Care Centers Associated with Energy, Vegetable, and Fruit Intake? Child. Obes. 2016, 12, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Koningstein, M.; Leenen, M.A.; Mughini-Gras, L.; Scholts, R.M.C.; Van Huisstede-Vlaanderen, K.W.; Enserink, R.; Zuidema, R.; Kooistra-Smid, M.A.M.D.; Veldman, K.; Mevius, D.; et al. Prevalence and Risk Factors for Colonization With Extended-Spectrum Cephalosporin-Resistant Escherichia coli in Children Attending Daycare Centers: A Cohort Study in the Netherlands. J. Pediatr. Infect. Dis. Soc. 2015, 4, e93–e99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Kotch, J.B.; Isbell, P.; Weber, D.J.; Nguyen, V.; Savage, E.; Gunn, E.; Skinner, M.; Fowlkes, S.; Virk, J.; Allen, J. Hand-Washing and Diapering Equipment Reduces Disease Among Children in Out-of-Home Child Care Centers. Pediatrics 2007, 120, e29–e36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lee, R.; Zhai, F.; Han, W.J.; Brooks-Gunn, J.; Waldfogel, J. Head Start and children’s nutrition, weight, and health care receipt. Early Child. Res. Q. 2013, 28, 723–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Lehto, R.; Ray, C.; Korkalo, L.; Vepsäläinen, H.; Nissinen, K.; Koivusilta, L.; Roos, E.; Erkkola, M. Fruit, Vegetable, and Fibre Intake among Finnish Preschoolers in Relation to Preschool-Level Facilitators and Barriers to Healthy Nutrition. Nutrients 2019, 11, 1458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Lehto, R.; Ray, C.; Vepsäläinen, H.; Korkalo, L.; Nissinen, K.; Skaffari, E.; Määttä, S.; Roos, E.; Erkkola, M. Early educators’ practices and opinions in relation to pre-schoolers’ dietary intake at pre-school: Case Finland. Public Health Nutr. 2019, 22, 1567–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  77. Linting, M.; Groeneveld, M.G.; Vermeer, H.J.; Van Ijzendoorn, M.H. Threshold for noise in daycare: Noise level and noise variability are associated with child wellbeing in home-based childcare. Early Child. Res. Q. 2013, 28, 960–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Loeb, S.; Fuller, B.; Kagan, S.L.; Carrol, B. Child Care in Poor Communities: Early Learning Effects of Type, Quality, and Stability. Child Dev. 2004, 75, 47–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Luchini, V.; Musaad, S.; Lee, S.Y.; Donovan, S.M. Observed differences in child picky eating behavior between home and childcare locations. Appetite 2017, 116, 123–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Määttä, S.; Konttinen, H.; Lehto, R.; Haukkala, A.; Erkkola, M.; Roos, E. Preschool Environmental Factors, Parental Socioeconomic Status, and Children’s Sedentary Time: An Examination of Cross-Level Interactions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 16, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Määttä, S.; Gubbels, J.; Ray, C.; Koivusilta, L.; Nislin, M.; Sajaniemi, N.; Erkkola, M.; Roos, E. Children’s physical activity and the preschool physical environment: The moderating role of gender. Early Child. Res. Q. 2019, 47, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Maggi, S.; Roberts, W.; MacLennan, D.; D’Angiulli, A. Community resilience, quality childcare, and preschoolers’ mental health: A three-city comparison. Soc. Sci. Med. 2011, 73, 1080–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Marr, D.; Cermak, S.; Cohn, E.S.; Henderson, A. Fine Motor Activities in Head Start and Kindergarten Classrooms. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2003, 57, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Mårtensson, F.; Boldemann, C.; Söderström, M.; Blennow, M.; Englund, J.-E.; Grahn, P. Outdoor environmental assessment of attention promoting settings for preschool children. Health Place 2009, 15, 1149–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mazzucca, S.; Hales, D.; Evenson, K.R.; Ammerman, A.; Tate, D.F.; Berry, D.C.; Ward, D.S. Physical Activity Opportunities Within the Schedule of Early Care and Education Centers. J. Phys. Act. Health 2018, 15, 73–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Mikkelsen, B.E. Associations between pedagogues’ attitudes, praxis and policy in relation to physical activity of children in kindergarten: Results from a cross sectional study of health behavior amongst Danish pre-school children. Pediatr. Obes. 2011, 6, 12–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Musher-Eizenman, D.R.; Young, K.M.; Laurene, K.; Galliger, C.; Hauser, J.; Oehlhof, M.W. Children’s Sensitivity to External Food Cues: How Distance to Serving Bowl Influences Children’s Consumption. Health Educ. Behav. 2010, 37, 186–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Nafstad, P.; Jaakkola, J.J.K.; Skrondal, A.; Magnus, P. Day care center characteristics and children’s respiratory health. Indoor Air 2005, 15, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. National Institute of Child Health. The Relation of Child Care to Cognitive and Language Development. Child Dev. 2000, 71, 960–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Anonymous. Child-care and family predictors of preschool attachment and stability from infancy. Dev. Psychol. 2001, 37, 847–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Niemistö, D.; Finni, T.; Haapala, E.A.; Cantell, M.; Korhonen, E.; Sääkslahti, A. Environmental Correlates of Motor Competence in Children: The Skilled Kids Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. O’Connor, J.P.; Temple, V.A. Constraints and Facilitators for Physical Activity in Family Day Care. Australas. J. Early Child. 2005, 30, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Olesen, L.G.; Kristensen, P.L.; Korsholm, L.; Froberg, K. Physical Activity in Children Attending Preschools. Pediatrics 2013, 132, e1310–e1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Park, S.; Park, C.; Bahorski, J.; Cormier, E. Factors influencing obesity among preschoolers: Multilevel approach. Int. Nurs. Rev. 2019, 66, 346–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Pate, R.R.; McIver, K.; Dowda, M.; Brown, W.H.; Addy, C. Directly Observed Physical Activity Levels in Preschool Children. J. Sch. Health 2008, 78, 438–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Pate, R.R.; O’Neill, J.R.; Byun, W.; McIver, K.L.; Dowda, M.; Brown, W.H. Physical activity in preschool children: Comparison between Montessori and traditional preschools. J. Sch. Health 2014, 84, 716–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Peden, M.E.; Jones, R.; Costa, S.; Ellis, Y.; Okely, A.D. Relationship between children’s physical activity, sedentary behavior, and childcare environments: A cross sectional study. Prev. Med. Rep. 2017, 6, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ray, C.; Määttä, S.; Lehto, R.; Roos, G.; Roos, E. Influencing factors of children’s fruit, vegetable and sugar-enriched food intake in a Finnish preschool setting: Preschool personnel’s perceptions. Appetite 2016, 103, 72–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  99. Roberts, A.; LoCasale-Crouch, J.; Hamre, B.; DeCoster, J. Exploring Teachers’ Depressive Symptoms, Interaction Quality, and Children’s Social-Emotional Development in Head Start. Early Educ. Dev. 2016, 27, 642–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Röttger, K.; Grimminger, E.; Kreuser, F.; Assländer, L.; Gollhofer, A.; Korsten-Reck, U. Physical Activity in Different Preschool Settings: An Exploratory Study. J. Obes. 2014, 2014, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Roubinov, D.S.; Bush, N.R.; Hagan, M.J.; Thompson, J.; Boyce, W.T. Associations between classroom climate and children’s externalizing symptoms: The moderating effect of kindergarten children’s parasympathetic reactivity. Dev. Psychopathol. 2019, 32, 661–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Schlechter, C.R.; Rosenkranz, R.R.; Fees, B.S.; Dzewaltowski, D.A. Preschool Daily Patterns of Physical Activity Driven by Location and Social Context. J. Sch. Health 2017, 87, 194–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Scott, J.T.; Kilmer, R.P.; Wang, C.; Cook, J.R.; Haber, M.G. Natural Environments near Schools: Potential Benefits for Socio-Emotional and Behavioral Development in Early Childhood. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2018, 62, 419–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Siekkinen, M.; Pakarinen, E.; Lerkkanen, M.K.; Poikkeus, A.M.; Salminen, J.; Poskiparta, E.; Nurmi, J.E. Social Competence Among 6-year-old Children and Classroom Instructional Support and Teacher Stress. Early Educ. Dev. 2013, 24, 877–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Slack-Smith, L.M.; Read, A.W.; Stanley, F.J. Absence from childcare for respiratory illness. Child Care Health Dev. 2003, 30, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Smith, W.R.; Moore, R.; Cosco, N.; Wesoloski, J.; Danninger, T.; Ward, D.S.; Trost, S.G.; Ries, N. Increasing Physical Activity in Childcare Outdoor Learning Environments. Environ. Behav. 2014, 48, 550–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Söderström, M.; Boldemann, C.; Sahlin, U.; Mårtensson, F.; Raustorp, A.; Blennow, M. The quality of the outdoor environment influences children’s health: A cross-sectional study of preschools. Acta Paediatr. 2013, 102, 83–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Soini, A.; Villberg, J.; Sääkslahti, A.; Gubbels, J.; Mehtälä, A.; Kettunen, T.; Poskiparta, M. Directly Observed Physical Activity among 3-Year-Olds in Finnish Childcare. Int. J. Early Child. 2014, 46, 253–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Staiano, A.E.; Webster, E.K.; Allen, A.T.; Jarrell, A.R.; Martin, C.K. Screen-Time Policies and Practices in Early Care and Education Centers in Relationship to Child Physical Activity. Child. Obes. 2018, 14, 341–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Stanton, W.R.; Saleheen, H.N.; O’Riordan, D.; Roy, C.R. Environmental conditions and variation in levels of sun exposure among children in childcare. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2003, 10, 285–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Staton, S.L.; Smith, S.S.; Pattinson, C.L.; Thorpe, K.J. Mandatory Naptimes in Child Care and Children’s Nighttime Sleep. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 2015, 36, 235–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  112. Stephens, R.L.; Xu, Y.; Lesesne, C.A.; Dunn, L.; Kakietek, J.; Jernigan, J.; Khan, L.K. Relationship Between Child Care Centers’ Compliance with Physical Activity Regulations and Children’s Physical Activity, New York City, 2010. Prev. Chronic Dis. 2014, 11, E179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Stich, H.L.; Baune, B.T.; Caniato, R.N.; Krämer, A. Associations between preschool attendance and developmental impairments in pre-school children in a six-year retrospective survey. BMC Public Health 2006, 6, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Stich, H.L.; Caniato, R.N.; Krämer, A.; Baune, B. Influence of kindergarten on numbers of multiple developmental delays in preschoolers: An analysis over 14 years. Int. J. Public Health 2016, 62, 613–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Sugiyama, T.; Okely, A.D.; Masters, J.M.; Moore, G.T. Attributes of Child Care Centers and Outdoor Play Areas Associated with Preschoolers’ Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2012, 44, 334–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Sun, Y.; Sundell, J. Early Daycare Attendance Increase the Risk for Respiratory Infections and Asthma of Children. J. Asthma 2011, 48, 790–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Tandon, P.S.; Zhou, C.; Lozano, P.; Christakis, D.A. Preschoolers’ Total Daily Screen Time at Home and by Type of Child Care. J. Pediatr. 2011, 158, 297–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Ross, S.T.; Dowda, M.; Saunders, R.P.; Pate, R.R. Double Dose: The Cumulative Effect of TV viewing at Home and in Preschool on Children’s Activity Patterns and Weight Status. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 2013, 25, 262–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. True, L.; Pfeiffer, K.A.; Dowda, M.; Williams, H.G.; Brown, W.H.; O’Neill, J.R.; Pate, R.R. Motor competence and characteristics within the preschool environment. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2017, 20, 751–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Tucker, T.; Irwin, J. Physical Activity Behaviors during the Preschool Years. Child Health Educ. 2010, 2, 60–70. [Google Scholar]
  121. Tucker, P.; Vanderloo, L.M.; Burke, S.M.; Irwin, J.D.; Johnson, A.M. Prevalence and influences of preschoolers’ sedentary behaviors in early learning centers: A cross-sectional study. BMC Pediatr. 2015, 15, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  122. Van Beeck, A.H.E.; Zomer, T.P.; Van Beeck, E.F.; Richardus, J.H.; Voeten, H.A.; Erasmus, V. Children’s hand hygiene behaviour and available facilities: An observational study in Dutch day care centers. Eur. J. Public Health 2015, 26, 297–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Eveline, V.C.; Valery, L.; Jessica, G.; Ilse, D.B.; Greet, C. Preschooler’s physical activity levels and associations with lesson context, teacher’s behavior, and environment during preschool physical education. Early Child. Res. Q. 2012, 27, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Van Stappen, V.; Van Dyck, D.; Latomme, J.; De Bourdeaudhuij, I.; Moreno, L.; Socha, P.; Iotova, V.; Koletzko, B.; Manios, Y.; Androutsos, O.; et al. Daily Patterns of Preschoolers’ Objectively Measured Step Counts in Six European Countries: Cross-Sectional Results from the ToyBox-Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Vanderloo, L.M.; Tucker, P. Physical activity and sedentary time among young children in full-day kindergarten: Comparing traditional and balanced day schedules. Health Educ. J. 2017, 76, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Vanderloo, L.M.; Tucker, P.; Johnson, A.M.; Van Zandvoort, M.M.; Burke, S.M.; Irwin, J.D. The Influence of Centre-Based Childcare on Preschoolers’ Physical Activity Levels: A Cross-Sectional Study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2014, 11, 1794–1802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  127. Vanderloo, L.M.; Tucker, P.; Johnson, A.M.; Burke, S.M.; Irwin, J.D. Environmental Influences on Preschoolers’ Physical Activity Levels in Various Early-Learning Facilities. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport 2015, 86, 360–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  128. Ward, S.A.; Bélanger, M.; Donovan, D.; Vatanparast, H.; Muhajarine, N.; Engler-Stringer, R.; Leis, A.; Humbert, M.L.; Carrier, N. Association between childcare educators’ practices and preschoolers’ physical activity and dietary intake: A cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e013657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  129. Werner, C.; Linting, M.; Vermeer, H.; Van Ijzendoorn, M. Noise in center-based childcare: Associations with quality of care and child emotional wellbeing. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 42, 190–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Wolfenden, L.; Hardy, L.; Wiggers, J.; Milat, A.; Bell, A.; Sutherland, R. Prevalence and socio-demographic associations of overweight and obesity among children attending childcare services in rural and regional New Wouth Wales Australia. Nutr. Diet. 2011, 68, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Van Zandvoort, M.; Tucker, P.; Irwin, J.D.; Burke, S.M. Physical activity at daycare: Issues, challenges and perspectives. Early Years 2010, 30, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Zhang, Z.; Pereira, J.R.; Sousa-Sá, E.; Okely, A.D.; Feng, X.; Santos, R. Environmental characteristics of early childhood education and care, daily movement behaviors and adiposity in toddlers: A multilevel mediation analysis from the GET UP! Study. Health Place 2018, 54, 236–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  133. O’Brien, K.T.; Vanderloo, L.M.; Bruijns, B.A.; Truelove, S.; Tucker, P. Physical activity and sedentary time among preschoolers in center-based childcare: A systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2018, 15, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Mikkelsen, M.V.; Husby, S.; Skov, L.R.; Perez-Cueto, F.J.A. A systematic review of types of healthy eating interventions in preschools. Nutr. J. 2014, 13, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  135. Ward, S.A.; Belanger, M.; Donovan, D.; Carrier, N. Systematic review of the relationship between childcare educators’ practices and preschoolers’ physical activity and eating behaviours. Obes. Rev. 2015, 16, 1055–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  136. Hahn, R.A.; Rammohan, V.; Truman, B.I.; Milstein, B.; Johnson, R.L.; Muntaner, C.; Jones, C.P.; Fullilove, M.T.; Chattopadhyay, S.K.; Hunt, P.C.; et al. Effects of Full-Day Kindergarten on the Long-Term Health Prospects of Children in Low-Income and Racial/Ethnic-Minority Populations. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2014, 46, 312–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Perlman, M.; Fletcher, B.; Falenchuk, O.; Brunsek, A.; McMullen, E.; Shah, P.S. Child-Staff Ratios in Early Childhood Education and Care Settings and Child Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0170256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  138. Falenchuk, O.; Perlman, M.; McMullen, E.; Fletcher, B.; Shah, P.S. Education of staff in preschool aged classrooms in child care centers and child outcomes: A meta-analysis and systematic review. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0183673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  139. Costa, S.; Adams, J.; Gonzalez-Nahm, S.; Neelon, S.E.B. Childcare in Infancy and Later Obesity: A Narrative Review of Longitudinal Studies. Curr. Pediatr. Rep. 2017, 5, 118–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  140. Bradley, R.H.; Corwyn, R.F. Socioeconomic Status and Child Development. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2002, 53, 371–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  141. Nicholson, J.M.; Lucas, N.; Berthelsen, D.; Wake, M. Socioeconomic inequality profiles in physical and developmental health from 0–7 years: Australian National Study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2010, 66, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Ijerph 18 04973 g001 550
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram (according to the recommendations of Moher et al. 2009 for reporting reviews [15]).
Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram (according to the recommendations of Moher et al. 2009 for reporting reviews [15]).
Ijerph 18 04973 g001
Ijerph 18 04973 g002 550
Figure 2. Frequency of ECEC center characteristics examined in the scoping review (%, n).
Figure 2. Frequency of ECEC center characteristics examined in the scoping review (%, n).
Ijerph 18 04973 g002
Ijerph 18 04973 g003 550
Figure 3. Frequency of health indicators examined in the scoping review (%, n).
Figure 3. Frequency of health indicators examined in the scoping review (%, n).
Ijerph 18 04973 g003
Ijerph 18 04973 g004 550
Figure 4. Associations between ECEC center MLCs with health, health behavior, and wellbeing of children.
Figure 4. Associations between ECEC center MLCs with health, health behavior, and wellbeing of children.
Ijerph 18 04973 g004
Table
Table 1. Overview over included studies.
Table 1. Overview over included studies.
Author (Year
Published)		Country of OriginStudy Type/DesignStudy Size (n)Sample Age in Years (Mean; CV)Outcome Main
Category		Number of Extracted
Examinations		SEP Reported
(Yes, No)
Alexandrino et al., 2016 [18]PortugalCross sectional study1522.6; 26.9Physical health/development30no
Alkon et al., 2000 [19]USAProspective study3603.7; xPhysical health/development4no
Andreyeva et al., 2018 [20]USACross sectional study838[3–5 years]; xNutrition behavior42no
Arhab et al., 2018 [21]SwitzerlandCross sectional study4763.9; 17.9Various outcomes110yes
Barandiaran et al., 2015 [22]SpainCross sectional study2064.2; 12.8Mental health/development10no
Barbosa-Cesnik et al., 2006 [23]USACross sectional study1981.8; xPhysical health/development44no
Bell et al., 2015 [24]AustraliaRandomized control study (baseline)328x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior16no
Belsky et al., 2007 [25]USAlongitudinal study1,364x; xOther1no
Blaine et al., 2015 [26]USACross sectional study166x; xNutrition behavior95no
Boldemann et al., 2006 [27]SwedenCross sectional study199x; xVarious outcomes27yes
Bornstein et al., 2006 [28]USAMultimethod113x; xMental health/development6no
Bower et al., 2008 [3]USACross sectional studyx[3–5 years]; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior18no
Boyce et al., (2012) [29]USAProspective study3385.3; 5.7Other6yes
Brown et al., 2009 [30]USACross sectional study3724.2; 14.3–16.7Physical health/development6no
Burchinal et al., 2010 [31]USACross sectional study1,129x; xMental health/development8yes
Byun et al., 2013 [32]USACross sectional study331x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior5yes
Campbell et al., 2000 [33]SwedenCohort study521.3; 18.2Other42no
Cardon et al., 2008 [34]BelgiumCross sectional study783x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior20no
Carreiro-Martins et al., 2014 [35]PortugalCross sectional study3,1863.1; 48.4Physical health/development29no
Christian et al., 2019 [36]AustraliaCross sectional study6783.4; 23.5Various outcomes30yes
Coleman and Dyment 2013 [37]AustraliaQualitative studyxx; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior8yes
Copeland et al., 2016 [38]USACross sectional study3884.3; 16.3Physical activity/sedentary behavior20yes
Cosco et al., 2010 [7]USACross sectional study53x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior78no
De Decker et al., 2013 [39]Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Poland, SpainQualitative study87x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior12no
De Schipper et al., 2003 [40]The NetherlandsCross sectional study1861.6; 37.0Other6yes
De Craemer et al., 2014 [41]BelgiumRandomized control study (baseline)4724.43; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior15yes
Dettling et al., 2000 [42]USACross sectional study613.7; xVarious outcomes7yes
Deynoot-Schaub and Riksen-Walraven 2006 [43]The NetherlandsLongitudinal study701.3; 3.0Mental health/development110no
Dinkel et al., 2019 [44]USACross sectional study49x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior15no
Dörr et al., 2014 [45]GermanyRandomized control study (baseline)4054.9; 16.3Physical activity/sedentary behavior30yes
Dowda et al., 2004 [46]USACross sectional study2664.0; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior66no
Dowda et al., 2009 [47]USACross sectional study2993.8; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior30no
Dyment and Coleman 2012 [48]AustraliaMixed-methods study16x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior8yes
Eichinger et al., 2017 [49]GermanyRandomized control study (baseline)7354.8; 54.0Physical activity/sedentary behavior4yes
Eichinger et al., 2018 [50]GermanyRandomized control study (baseline)7354.8; 54.1Physical activity/sedentary behavior2yes
Ek et al., 2019 [51]SwedenQualitative study15x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior11no
Enserink et al., 2015 [52]The NetherlandsLongitudinal studyca. 1,600x; xPhysical health/development173yes
Erinosho et al., 2016 [53]USACross sectional study544x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior20no
Fossdal et al., 2018 [54]NorwayCross sectional study289x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior4no
Frenkel et al., 2019 [55]USAProspective study754.0; xPhysical health/development3yes
Gagné and Harnois 2013 [56]CanadaCross sectional study242[3–5 years]; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior9no
Goto et al., 2019 [57]JapanCross sectional study2,9025.2; xBody weight/obesity7no
Gronholt Olesen et al., 2015 [58]DenmarkCross sectional study350x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior6no
Gubbels et al., 2010 [59]The NetherlandsCohort study2,396x; xBody weight/obesity15no
Gubbels et al., 2011 [60]The NetherlandsCross sectional study1752.6; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior10no
Gubbels et al., 2012 [61]The NetherlandsCross sectional study1752.6; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior50no
Gubbels et al., 2015 [62]The NetherlandsCross sectional study3982.3; 37.0Nutrition behavior44no
Gubbels et al., 2018 [63]The NetherlandsCross sectional study1522.9; 26.3Physical activity/sedentary behavior24no
Henderson et al., 2015 [64]USACross sectional study3894.7; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior35yes
Hesketh and van Sluijs 2016 [65]UKCross sectional study201x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior72yes
Himberg-Sundet et al., 2019 [66]NorwayRandomized control study (baseline)xx; xNutrition behavior87yes
Hinkley et al., 2016 [67]AustraliaCross sectional study7314.6; 15.2Physical activity/sedentary behavior9yes
Hoffmann et al., 2014 [68]GermanyCross sectional study4344.9; 20.4Body weight/obesity2yes
Hughes et al., 2007 [69]USACross sectional study5494.1; xNutrition behavior20no
Jones et al., 2017 [70]AustraliaCross sectional study49x; xVarious outcomes28no
Kharofa et al., 2016 [71]USACross sectional study3494.3; 16.3Nutrition behavior21yes
Koningstein et al., 2015 [72]The NetherlandsCohort study852x; xPhysical health/development20yes
Kotch et al., 2007 [73]USAIntervention study388x; xOther4no
Lee et al., 2013 [74]USACohort study4350x; xVarious outcomes35yes
Lehto et al., 2019a [75]FinlandCross sectional study5864.7; 19.2Nutrition behavior21yes
Lehto et al., 2019b [76]FinlandCross sectional study5864.7; 19.2Nutrition behavior23yes
Linting et al., 2013 [77]The NetherlandsCross sectional study1032.4; 28.0Other6no
Loeb et al., 2004 [78]USAMixed-methods study4512.4; 32.6Mental health/development182yes
Luchini et al., 2017 [79]USACross sectional study50[3–5 years]; xNutrition behavior5yes
Määttä et al., 2018 [80]FinlandCross sectional study7794.3; 19.2Physical activity/sedentary behavior17yes
Määttä et al., 2019 [81]FinlandCross sectional study7784.3; 19.2Physical activity/sedentary behavior72yes
Maggi et al., 2011 [82]Vernon, Merritt, KamloopsCross sectional study6213.8; 18.4Mental health/development11yes
Marr et al., 2003 [83]single suburban–rural area of upstate New YorkCross sectional study40x; xOther5no
Martensson et al., 2009 [84]SwedenCross sectional study1985.3; 10.5Other4yes
Mazzucca et al., 2018 [85]USACross sectional study559x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior1no
Mikkelsen 2011 [86]DenmarkCross sectional study4200x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior2no
Musher-Eizenman et al., 2010 [87]USACross sectional study466.3; 36.5Nutrition behavior2no
Nafstad et al., 2005 [88]NorwayCross sectional study942x; xOther99no
NICHD 2000 [89]USAMixed-methods study1158x; xMental health/development180yes
NICHD 2001 [90]USAMixed-methods study1140x; xMental health/development15yes
Niemistö et al., 2019 [91]FinlandCross sectional study9455.4; 20.4Other70yes
O’Connor and Temple 2005 [92]AustraliaQualitative study45x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior4no
Olesen et al., 2013 [93]DenmarkCross sectional study4265.8; 5.2Physical activity/sedentary behavior10no
Park et al., 2019 [94]USACross sectional study1293.6; 22.8Body weight/obesity7no
Pate et al., 2008 [95]USACross sectional study4934.2; 16.7Physical activity/sedentary behavior4no
Pate et al., 2014 [96]USACross sectional study301x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior3no
Peden et al., 2017 [97]AustraliaCross sectional study301x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior42no
Ray et al., 2016 [98]FinlandQualitative studyxx; xNutrition behavior6no
Roberts et al., 2016 [99]USACross sectional study22034.0; 14.0Mental health/development8no
Röttger et al., 2014 [100]Germany, Switzerland, FranceCross sectional study1145.3; 12.3Physical activity/sedentary behavior1yes
Roubinov et al., 2019 [101]USALongitudinal study3385.3; 6.0Mental health/development2yes
Schlechter et al., 2017 [102]USACross sectional study73x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior2no
Scott et al., 2018 [103]USACross sectional study15514.5; 7.1Other12yes
Siekkinen et al., 2013 [104]FinlandLongitudinal study12686.1; 4.6Other18no
Slack-Smith et al., 2004 [105]AustraliaProspective study846x; xOther3no
Smith et al., 2016 [106]USACross sectional study6125x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior20no
Söderström et al., 2013 [107]SwedenCross sectional study172x; xOther36yes
Soini et al., 2014 [108]FinlandLongitudinal study81x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior4no
Staiano et al., 2018 [109]USACross sectional study1043.3; 15.2Physical activity/sedentary behavior12no
Stanton et al., 2003 [110]AustraliaCross sectional study49x; xOther2yes
Staton et al., 2015 [111]AustraliaLongitudinal study1684.9; 6.6Other3yes
Stephens et al., 2014 [112]USACross sectional study13523.4; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior19yes
Stich et al., (2006) [113]GermanyCross sectional study64206.0; 6.1Other12no
Stich et al., (2017) [114]GermanyLongitudinal study14,0685.9; 6.6Various outcomes24yes
Sugiyama et al., 2012 [115]AustraliaCross sectional study894.1; 14.6Physical activity/sedentary behavior20no
Sun and Sundell 2011 [116]USACross sectional study2819x; xPhysical health/development39no
Tandon et al., 2011 [117]USALongitudinal study89504.4; 0.2Other1yes
Ross et al., 2013 [118]USAIntervention study3394.5; 6.7Various outcomes14yes
True et al., (2017) [119]USACross sectional study2294.2; 16.7Other33yes
Tucker and Irwin 2010 [120]CanadaIntervention study1403.4; 23.4Physical activity/sedentary behavior1yes
Tucker et al., (2015) [121]CanadaCross sectional study2184.2; 23.2Physical activity/sedentary behavior15yes
Van Beeck et al., 2015 [122]The NetherlandsCross sectional study2318x; xOther3no
Van Cauwenberghe et al., 2012 [123]BelgiumCross sectional study5735.4; 7.4Physical activity/sedentary behavior17no
Van Stappen et al., 2018 [124]Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Poland and SpainCross sectional study35784.8; 8.3Physical activity/sedentary behavior1yes
Vanderloo and Tucker 2017 [125]CanadaCross sectional study1134.7; 14.1Physical activity/sedentary behavior24no
Vanderloo et al., 2014 [126]CanadaCross sectional study314.107; 20.7Physical activity/sedentary behavior10no
Vanderloo et al., 2015 [127]CanadaCross sectional study2184.2; 23.2Physical activity/sedentary behavior57yes
Ward et al., 2017 [128]CanadaCross sectional study7234.0; 17.5Nutrition behavior53no
Werner et al., 2015 [129]The NetherlandsCross sectional study2452.9; 22.6Other7no
Wolfenden et al., 2011 [130]AustraliaCross sectional study7643.9; 20.3Body weight/obesity1yes
Zandvoort et al., 2010 [131]CanadaQualitative study54x; xPhysical activity/sedentary behavior1no
Zhang et al., 2018 [132]AustraliaCross sectional study2741.6; 21.0Physical activity/sedentary behavior48yes
x = not reported; [] = age range if mean was not reported; Age in month was converted to years and multiple data were calculated as mean; CV = coefficient of variation in % (standard deviation/mean x 100).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Herr, R.M.; Diehl, K.; Schneider, S.; Osenbruegge, N.; Memmer, N.; Sachse, S.; Hoffmann, S.; Wachtler, B.; Herke, M.; Pischke, C.R.; et al. Which Meso-Level Characteristics of Early Childhood Education and Care Centers Are Associated with Health, Health Behavior, and Well-Being of Young Children? Findings of a Scoping Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4973. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094973

AMA Style

Herr RM, Diehl K, Schneider S, Osenbruegge N, Memmer N, Sachse S, Hoffmann S, Wachtler B, Herke M, Pischke CR, et al. Which Meso-Level Characteristics of Early Childhood Education and Care Centers Are Associated with Health, Health Behavior, and Well-Being of Young Children? Findings of a Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(9):4973. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094973

Chicago/Turabian Style

Herr, Raphael M., Katharina Diehl, Sven Schneider, Nina Osenbruegge, Nicole Memmer, Steffi Sachse, Stephanie Hoffmann, Benjamin Wachtler, Max Herke, Claudia R. Pischke, and et al. 2021. "Which Meso-Level Characteristics of Early Childhood Education and Care Centers Are Associated with Health, Health Behavior, and Well-Being of Young Children? Findings of a Scoping Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 9: 4973. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094973

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop