Search results

Critical Health Communication in Kinesiology and Sports Science: A Scoping Review

Fields neighboring the disciplines of kinesiology and sports science have called for more interdisciplinary work, including the adoption of critical approaches to research. This scoping review explored the degree to which critically-aligned research has developed within these disciplines. The goal was to identify who this research studied, what methods were used, and which theoretical and conceptual frameworks were adopted. Publications between 2010-2022 in six top kinesiology and sports science journals using four databases were searched using keywords to identify critically-aligned research. A multi-step screening process was used to identify and sort articles that adequately fit the criteria of critically-aligned research. The scoping review identified 5666 entries of which 3300 were unique publications. 76 articles were assessed to be critically-aligned. Four themes regarding demographics emerged: Geographic area, gender, race/ethnicity/indigeneity, and inequality/inequity. Regarding methodology, three major theoretical and conceptual frameworks emerged: ecological, socio-economic, and cultural. Overall, a relatively small number of studies fit our search criteria, suggesting that critically-aligned research remains at the margins of the disciplines. For the studies that were critically-aligned, they often centered the Global North and were inconsistent in their application of categories such as race, ethnicity, inequality and equity. These studies were diverse in their methodological approach while relying on ecological, socio-economic, and cultural frameworks. To heed the calls for a more interdisciplinary approach, and to advance the disciplines more generally, kinesiology and sports science should expand their adoption of critical approaches to research.

Oral Health Coaches at Well-Baby Clinics to Promote Oral Health in Preschool Children From the First Erupted Tooth

Background: Early childhood caries is considered one of the most prevalent diseases in childhood, affecting almost half of preschool-age children globally. In the Netherlands, approximately one-third of children aged 5 years already have dental caries, and dental care providers experience problems reaching out to these children. Objective: Within the proposed trial, we aim to test the hypothesis that, compared to children who receive usual care, children who receive the Toddler Oral Health Intervention as add-on care will have a reduced cumulative caries incidence and caries incidence density at the age of 48 months. Methods: This pragmatic, 2-arm, individually randomized controlled trial is being conducted in the Netherlands and has been approved by the Medical Ethics Research Board of University Medical Center Utrecht. Parents with children aged 6 to 12 months attending 1 of the 9 selected well-baby clinics are invited to participate. Only healthy children (ie, not requiring any form of specialized health care) with parents that have sufficient command of the Dutch language and have no plans to move outside the well-baby clinic region are eligible. Both groups receive conventional oral health education in well-baby clinics during regular well-baby clinic visits between the ages of 6 to 48 months. After concealed random allocation of interventions, the intervention group also receives the Toddler Oral Health Intervention from an oral health coach. The Toddler Oral Health Intervention combines behavioral interventions of proven effectiveness in caries prevention. Data are collected at baseline, at 24 months, and at 48 months. The primary study endpoint is cumulative caries incidence for children aged 48 months, and will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. For children aged 48 months, the balance between costs and effects of the Toddler Oral Health Intervention will be evaluated, and for children aged 24 months, the effects of the Toddler Oral Health Intervention on behavioral determinants, alongside cumulative caries incidence, will be compared. Results: The first parent-child dyads were enrolled in June 2017, and recruitment was finished in June 2019. We enrolled 402 parent-child dyads. Conclusions: All follow-up interventions and data collection will be completed by the end of 2022, and the trial results are expected soon thereafter. Results will be shared at international conferences and via peer-reviewed publication.

Effects of the COVID-19 school lockdowns on language and math performance of students in elementary schools: implications for educational practice and reducing inequality

The current study investigates the effects of the school lockdowns during school years 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 on the achievement scores of primary school students during the COVID-19 pandemic. We analyzed scores for spelling, reading fluency (i.e., decoding speed), reading comprehension, and mathematics from standardized student tracking systems for 5125 students from 26 primary schools in the urban region of The Hague, the Netherlands. Results showed that students in grades 1 through 3 had significant learning delays after the first lockdown. However, results after the second lockdown showed that most students were able to catch up, compared to students from corresponding grades of cohorts before COVID-19. The magnitude of these positive effects was mostly close to the negative effect of the first lockdown. Apparently, during the second lockdown, schools seemed better prepared and able to deliver more effective home schooling and online instruction. The hypothesis that students’ learning from a low SES home environment will suffer most from the school lockdowns could only partly be confirmed. SES effects at the individual level tended to be mitigated by negative effects of SES at the school level, making SES-related differences between schools less profound. The findings of this study offer a broader perspective to evaluate the effects of long-term school closures. Implications for educational practice and issues of inequality between students are discussed.

Socioeconomic status and mental health during the COVID-19 crisis

Background Evidence about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on existing health inequalities is emerging. This study explored differences in mental health, sense of coherence (SOC), sense of community coherence (SOCC), sense of national coherence (SONC), and social support between low and high socioeconomic (SES) groups, and the predictive value of these predictors for mental health. participants and procedure A cross-sectional study was conducted using an online survey in the Netherlands in October 2021, comprising a total of 91 respondents (n = 41, low SES; n = 50, high SES). results There were no differences in mental health, SOC, SOCC, SONC, and social support between the groups. SOC was a predictor for mental health in both groups and SOCC for the low SES group. conclusions We found that both SOC and SOCC predict mental health during the pandemic. In the article we reflect on possible pathways for strengthening these resources for mental health.

Basisontwerp course Interprofessionele samenwerking bij Infant Mental Health

Diamond is a scientist’s best friend: Counteracting systemic inequality in open access publishing

The field of applied linguistics is increasingly adopting open science practices. As open access publication gains traction, ethical issues emerge that need to be addressed by the field. This viewpoint paper addresses the concern that open science is not equally open for everyone. This paper describes how open access publication is increasingly being commercialized and explains how open access publication coincides with systemic inequality. We offer the following viewpoints for the field to consider:1.) We are morally obligated to make our research output accessible.2.) Hybrid, Gold, and Green open access publishing lead to systemic inequality in open access publishing, benefiting commercial publishers and those working in research-intensive universities and rich countries.3.)Diamond open access publication removes the systemic inequalities; hence, Diamond open access should be prioritized over Hybrid, Gold, and Green open access publication models.4.)We should move away from publish-and-read agreements and Green open access publishing, because they prevent system change.5.)Through our choices in our work as researchers, editors, reviewers, authors and teachers, we can contribute to the transition towards truly equitable open access publishing practices.6.)Senior researchers are in the position and have the moral obligation to be drivers of these changes.