Luzi Daniela, Rocco Ilaria, Tamburis Oscar, Corso Barbara, Minicuci Nadia, Pecoraro Fabrizio
National Research Council, Institute for Research on Population and Social Policies, via Palestro, 32, Rome, Lazio 00185, Italy.
National Research Council, Neuroscience Institute, Via Giustiniani 2, Padua, Veneto 35128, Italy.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2021 Feb 8;33(1). doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzab007.
The high variability in the types and number of measures adopted to evaluate childcare across European countries makes it necessary to investigate country practices to identify trends in setting national priorities in the assessment of child well-being.
This paper intends to investigate country practices under the lens of variability to explore possible trends in setting national priority in the evaluation of childcare. In particular, it analyses variability considering to what extent this depends on the tendency of adopting a broad vision (i.e. selecting measures for a larger variety of aspects) or whether this is influenced by the choice of adopting an in-depth approach (i.e. using more measures to analyse a specific aspect).
An ad hoc questionnaire was administered to a national expert in each country and yielded 352 measures. To analyse variability, the breadth in the number of aspects considered was explored using a convergence index, while the depth in the distribution of measures in each aspect was investigated by computing a coefficient of variation. Countries were grouped by adopting a hierarchical clustering approach.
There is a high variability across countries in the selection of measures that cover different aspects of childcare. Preferences in the distribution of measures are significant even at the domain level and in countries that use a limited number of measures and become more evident at the category and sub-category levels. The statistical analysis clusters countries in four main groups and two outliers. The in-depth distribution of measures focused on a specific aspect shows a homogeneous pattern, with the identification of two main groups of countries.
A limited set of measures are shared across countries hampering a robust comparison of paediatric models. The selection of measures shows that the evaluation is closely related to national priorities as resulting from the number and types of measures adopted. Moreover, a range of a reasonable number of measures can be hypothesized to address the quality of childcare under a multi-dimensional perspective.
欧洲各国在评估儿童保育时所采用的措施类型和数量存在很大差异，因此有必要对各国的做法进行调查，以确定在评估儿童福祉时设定国家优先事项的趋势。
本文旨在从差异的角度调查各国的做法，以探索在评估儿童保育时设定国家优先事项的可能趋势。具体而言，它分析了差异，考虑到这在多大程度上取决于采用广泛视角的倾向（即选择更多方面的措施），或者这是否受到采用深入方法的选择的影响（即使用更多措施来分析特定方面）。
向每个国家的一位国家专家发放了一份特设问卷，共得到352项措施。为了分析差异，使用收敛指数探索所考虑方面数量的广度，同时通过计算变异系数研究每个方面措施分布的深度。采用层次聚类方法对各国进行分组。
各国在选择涵盖儿童保育不同方面的措施方面存在很大差异。即使在领域层面以及使用措施数量有限的国家，措施分布的偏好也很明显，并且在类别和子类别层面变得更加明显。统计分析将各国分为四个主要组和两个异常值。专注于特定方面的措施的深入分布呈现出一种同质模式，确定了两个主要的国家组。
各国共享的措施有限，这妨碍了对儿科模式进行有力比较。措施的选择表明，评估与所采用措施的数量和类型所反映的国家优先事项密切相关。此外，可以假设一系列合理数量的措施从多维角度解决儿童保育的质量问题。
