Now they are 7: what influences children's wellbeing?

The most recent findings from Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) explore the possible influences on children’s wellbeing and their behavioural and emotional difficulties. Lesley Kelly, GUS Dissemination Officer, outlines key findings.

GUS aims to find out about how the circumstances and experiences of children in Scotland are changing, and how early experiences influence later outcomes. The first group of children invited into the study are now 7 years old and for the first time they have answered questions themselves. This provides a really interesting aspect to the study as we find out about both mother and child perspectives.

This new research uses information collected from over 3,000 mothers and children, interviewed during 2012/13. Mothers were asked about their child’s emotional and behavioural difficulties using a behavioural screening tool called the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). The children were asked about their life satisfaction using a series of questions including ‘do you feel your life is going well?’ and ‘do you wish your life was different?’ (adapted from the Huebner Student Life Satisfaction Scale). 

Researchers were interested in learning about the role of child and family characteristics , parenting behaviours, school experiences, friendships, leisure activities and the importance of materialistic attitudes, ie having ‘expensive things’ on both child mental health and well-being. The researchers measured for behavioural and emotional problems as reported by the mother and low sense of well-being as reported by the child.

The numbers

• This research suggests that 1 in 25 children in Scotland experience both mental health problems and low subjective well-being:
• 11% of children in the study were classed as having high levels of behavioural and emotional problems, while 25% reported low life satisfaction. 4% of children experienced both.
• 21% of children had low life satisfaction but no behavioural and emotional difficulties. 7% had a high level of difficulties but did not report low life satisfaction.
• Children with high levels of difficulties were more likely to report low well-being (39%) than those with normal levels (24%).

The factors

Children who had both child mental health problems and low life satisfaction were more likely to experience: greater conflict in the mother-child relationship; lower parental knowledge of the child’s activities or relationships when not at school; difficulties adjusting to the learning or social environment at primary school; and poorer quality friendships with other children.

 

Economic factors and some other aspects of family life (including family structure and the child’s leisure activities) were not clearly associated with either measure of social and emotional well-being, after allowing for other influences. Materialistic values (the importance of ‘expensive things’ to the child) were not associated with their life satisfaction.

 

The research also found that family ‘stressors’ such as mother’s experiencing poor health, family mental health/ substance use problems and low levels of warmth in the mother-child relationship were associated with child mental health difficulties but not the child’s sense of well-being. Conversely, experiencing a recent bereavement, illness or accident in the family, and less positive parenting (defined as less positive reinforcement of good behaviour and less involvement in the child’s activities) did appear to affect children’s life satisfaction, irrespective of whether they experienced behavioural and emotional difficulties.

 

The implications

This research supports the idea that social relationships, involving parents, teachers and friends, are of key importance for children’s well-being. A holistic approach, which recognises the different components of well-being and the range of influencing factors, should be adopted. Approaches to promoting social and emotional well-being could be developed for use in both family and school settings.

 

These findings help to identify which children are at risk of low well-being and might benefit from some targeted support. Parents and children could be offered better access to professional and advice and support services to improve parent-child relationships and to effectively manage behavioural problems. Given the importance of adjustment to the learning and social environment at school, greater attention to the transition to school may be required for some children. Children who experience difficulties making friends might also be helped by initiatives designed to help build relationships within and outwith school. Finally, support for children and families experiencing ill health and/or bereavement is crucial. Good practice in these areas should be extended so that every child can access the support they need for their emotional health and wellbeing.

 

The full report ‘Growing Up in Scotland: Family and school influences on children’s social and emotional well-being’ by Alison Parkes, Helen Sweeting and Daniel Wight is available from the GUS website www.growingupinscotland.org.uk.

 

GUS is funded by the Scottish Government and is carried out by ScotCen Social Research in collaboration with the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships at the University of Edinburgh and the MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit at the University of Glasgow. 

 

Contact Lesley by email 

The impact of independence on the future of Scotland's children

 Last night, we were discussing ‘The Impact of independence on the future of Scotland’s children’, at the University of Dundee as part of the Five Million Questions platform. Organised by Lorraine van Blerk and colleagues, the panel involved Aileen Campbell Minister for Children and Young People and MSP, Kezia Dugdale MSP, John McKendrick (Glasgow Caledonian University) and Kay Tisdall (Co-Director of CRFR, University of Edinburgh). In this blog, Kay shares key points and questions that arose from the discussion. 

The biggest topic of the evening was child poverty and income inequality. With statistics showing that 20% of children in Scotland still living in poverty, and modelling forecasts showing a further 100,000 children will be pushed into poverty by 2020, the politicians debated about devolved and reserved powers, taxes and the potential impact (or not) of independence. But all could easily agree – as the audience applauded – that public will to address inequality was required: there is a lot of talking about addressing inequality and poverty in Scotland, in these times of discussing independence, but are we serious about redistribution?

Other questions from the audience ranged from: should cash benefits be replaced by vouchers? (no – stigmatising); will there be more money for schooling in an independent Scotland? (can we say for sure? But ongoing investment in prevention and beyond was essential); and what the ‘dream’ is for Scotland? As John McKendrick pointed out, the opportunity for 16 and 17 year olds to vote in September may open up even further possibilities to engage children and young people seriously.

Whatever the decision on the September referendum, these discussion are a refreshing and much needed opportunity to ‘think big’ and have participative, productive debates for the possibilities for Scotland. It allows us to realise what we can do under the existing devolved powers – and perhaps even more under ‘devo-max’ – as well as what an independent Scotland might do to further children’s human rights. Whatever decision, my suggestion is to keep that vision going and turn some of the best ideas into reality – can we truly make ‘Scotland the best place in the world to grow up in’?

What does the evidence say about childcare in Scotland?

The budget brings promises from the UK Govt for childcare subsidies to help couples with joint incomes who are "working hard, who are feeling the squeeze" and to "assist women back into the workforce". Similarly, the SNP have pledged to increase state-paid childcare for all three and four- year olds, again to "help people, especially women, to move into the workforce", if it was elected within an independent Scotland.

Those with an interest in research on families and relationships may question whether these announcements skim over some of the tough issues facing families, particularly those families struggling to get into work. The recent launch of the Scotland's Outlook campaign to raise awareness of the extent of poverty across Scotland, followed by the Scottish Government's publication of a new poverty strategy does help to widen the lens to look at the many contributing factors affecting many parents ability to enter the paid workforce.

CRFR reflects on what the evidence says about childcare and working families:

• Most families in Scotland use childcare in the early years[1]. This tends to be a mixture of informal (typically grandparent) and formal providers for their childcare arrangements[2]. The support provided by grandparents should not be underestimated, with many grandparents involved in childcare or babysitting on a regular basis. We know that work is important to women and families. Evidence from GUS shows that most mothers of young children who are in paid work, work part-time[3]. Mothers value work highly, not only for its economic contribution, but also for personal identity, social contact and as an important message for their children[4]. Most working parents with children under 5 believe that their employment is not detrimental to their enjoyment of family life nor to their ability to raise their child(ren).[5][6] 
• The focus on childcare costs is not misplaced - accessing available, affordable and quality childcare remains a key concern for parents combining caring and working[7][8]. But all is not equal. Factors associated with poverty can add up to make it tougher for families. Lone parent families and re-partnered families are more likely to have no parent in employment than couple families[9]. Lone mothers[10], families living on low incomes[11] and families affected by disability[12] are particularly affected by lack of affordable and suitable childcare.
• Work, does not in itself, protect families from poverty, particularly when there is only one worker in the household. Families in deprived areas often require quite complex childcare arrangements to make work a possibility[13].
• Parents from low-income areas tend to have low levels of social support and are least likely to access formal services[14].
• People living in rural areas and areas of higher deprivation are less likely to be able to access childcare services than those in urban areas[15]. 
• Living in child friendly communities and having a reasonable level of resources, such as access to outdoor play, are also very important to outcomes for children[16].
• Flexibility in childcare provision needs also to be matched by flexibility in workplace practices and employment opportunity: 
• Parents working full-time and those in lower supervisory or technical occupations were more likely to say that their employment had a negative impact on family life[17].
• Parents face competing demands on their time relating to their responsibilities as parents and employees. This is experienced through the difficulties of balancing work and family life and results in a sense of harriedness, of feeling constantly busy, tired and stressed.[18]
• Lone mothers of children of all ages are more likely to experience employment barriers. Low qualifications, lack of confidence, family health issues, lack of training and transport are other barriers they face[19].
• Parents of disabled children face particular barriers around employment, including inflexible employers, and especially a lack of affordable and appropriate childcare[20], which are not addressed in the consultation document.
• The debate on childcare should also consider the behavioural and cognitive benefits for children. Attending nursery or pre-school is important for our young children. Evidence from GUS shows that non-parental childcare in the early years is beneficial to a child’s cognitive development, in small effect[21]. However, universal policies which seek to improve children’s cognitive ability and school readiness in the pre-school period will not benefit all children equally.
• The level of parents’ education qualification is a driver in a child’s cognitive ability at ages 3 and 5. Any strategies aimed at improving school readiness via a pre-school setting need to include, for disadvantaged children, strategies which seek to influence the child’s home environment and parenting experiences at the same time[22].
• Similarly, lone parents, younger mothers, parents with lower educational qualifications and parents from more deprived socio-economic communities had lower levels of participation in their children’s school activities – both in terms of homework once they had started school and in the number of activities they attended at the school. This has been shown to be associated with lower educational achievement for children[23]
• Lastly, there is very little known about children’s views and experiences of their parent’s work. Qualitative research carried out in Scotland found that there are clear challenges in negotiating how work and family life balance out[18].
• Work is typically justified by the financial gains, rather than any of the social or personal benefits for parents, when helping children to understand why work is part of everyday life.
• ‘Home’ is an important space for children, and was described as a more natural space where they have greater freedom to be themselves. This was contrasted with the more collective and organised nature of after-school clubs.
• This brings challenges in keeping clear boundaries between home and work, and importantly how available they are to their children when at home – particularly for parents who also work from home.
• Parents expressed feelings of guilt and anxiety about not being able to give 100% to either work or family, and are constantly trying to meet the demands of both sides.
• Children are aware of the impact of work on their parents’ emotional and physical state, and do support their parents by complying with routines, helping with chores, looking after themselves and young siblings.
• However, families were creative in realising some of their aspirations, with holidays and weekend highlighted as times when children’s wishes could be better met, opportunities to reap some of the financial rewards of employment and overall family well-being achieved.

Are you involved in research that can contribute to this debate? We are interested to hear from others invovled in research on families and relationships. Please leave a comment below, tweet us at @CRFRtweets or email us at kirsten.thomlinson@ed.ac.uk.

 

 

[1] Bradshaw P. and Wasoff F. (2009) Growing Up in Scotland: Multiple Childcare Provision and Its Effect on Child Outcomes. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

[2] Jamieson, L., Warner, P. and Bradshaw, P. (2012) The involvement of grandparents in children’s lives. Growing Up in Scotland Topic Research Findings no.1/2012. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

[3] Bradshaw P, Cunningham-Burley S, Dobbie F, McGregor A, Marryat L, Ormston, R. and Wasoff F. (2008) Growing Up in Scotland: Sweep 2 Overview Report, Edinburgh: The Scottish Government.

[4] Backet-Milburn K, Cunningham-Burley S, and Kemmer D (2001) Caing and providing: Lone and partnered working mothers in Scotland. London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

[5] Bradshaw P, Cunningham-Burley S, Dobbie F, McGregor A, Marryat L, Ormston, R. and Wasoff F. (2008) Growing Up in Scotland: Sweep 2 Overview Report, Edinburgh: The Scottish Government

[6] Backett-Milburn, K., Harden, J., Maclean, A., Cunningham-Burley, S. and Jamieson, L (2011) Work and family live: the changing experiences of ‘young families’. Timescapes final report, project 5. 

[7] Bradshaw P, Cunningham-Burley S, Dobbie F, McGregor A, Marryat L, Ormston, R. and Wasoff F. (2008) Growing Up in Scotland: Sweep 2 Overview Report, Edinburgh: The Scottish Government

[8] McKie, L., Gregory, S. and Bowlby, S. (2004) Caringscapes: the experiences of caring and working. CRFR research briefing No.13. Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Families and Relationships.

[9] Growing Up in Scotland (2009) Non-resident parent summary report. Growing Up in Scotland Topic Research Findings no. 1/2009. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

[10] Backet-Milburn K, Cunningham-Burley S, and Kemmer D (2001) Caring and providing: Lone and partnered working mothers in Scotland. London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

[11] McKendrick J, Cunningham-Burley S and Backett-Milburn K (2003) Life in low income families in Scotland: Research report. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive 

[12] About Families (2012) Parenting on a low income. Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Families and Relationships.

[13] Barnes, M., Chanfreau, J. and Tomaszewski, W. (2010) The circumstances of persistently poor children summary report. Growing Up in Scotland topic research findings no.1/2010. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. 

[14] About Families (2012) Parenting on a low income. Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Families and Relationships. 

[15] Growing Up in Scotland (2009) Parenting and the neighbourhood context summary report, Growing Up in Scotland Topic Research Findings no. 3/2009. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

[16] Growing Up in Scotland (2009) Parenting and the neighbourhood context summary report, Growing Up in Scotland Topic Research Findings no. 3/2009. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

[17] Bradshaw P, Cunningham-Burley S, Dobbie F, McGregor A, Marryat L, Ormston, R. and Wasoff F. (2008) Growing Up in Scotland: Sweep 2 Overview Report, Edinburgh: The Scottish Government 

[18] Harden, J., Backett-Milburn, K., MacLean, A., Cunningham-Burley, S. and Jamieson, L. (2013) Home and away: constructing family and childhood in the context of working parenthood. Children’s Geographies, 11(3):298-310. 

[19] About Families (2012) Parenting on a low income. Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Families and Relationships.

[20] About Families (2012) Parenting on a low income. Edinburgh: Centre for Research on Families and Relationships.

[21] Growing Up In Scotland (2009) Multiple Childcare Provision and its Effect on Child Outcomes Summary Report. Growing Up in Scotland Topic Research Findings no.4/2009. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. 

[22] Bradshaw, P. (2011) Changes in child cognitive ability in the pre-school years, Growing Up in Scotland Topic Research Findings no.2/2011. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

[23] Bradshaw, P., Hall, J., Hill, T., Mabelis, J. and Philo, D. (2012) Early experiences of primary school – parental involvement in school activities. Growing Up in Scotland Topic Research Findings no.3/2012. Edinburgh: Scottish Government. 

 

 

Children's diet unaffected by fall in household income

CRFR Associate Researchers, Dr Valeria Skafida and Dr Morag Treanor, gained media coverage earlier in the month when they published their article exploring whether a change in family income is a good predictor of children's diet.

The research found that changes in a family’s income do not affect the healthiness of their children’s diet, and that a drop in family income does not trigger a decrease in the amount of fruit and vegetables their children eat. The finding challenges the idea that the healthiness of a diet is directly linked to income levels.

Changes in how parents felt about money were more strongly linked to their children’s diets than their actual incomes. This could be because income is not evenly distributed within the home, or because it is perception of poverty rather than measured poverty that determines food choices.

 The study, which used data from the Growing Up In Scotland survey, compared the diet of about 3000 children at the age of two and then again at age five. It also tracked the income of their parents over the same period.

The diets of young children in Scotland deteriorated between the ages of two and five for all, regardless of a family’s income level. By the age of five all children are likely to eat fewer vegetables and to have more sweets and sugary drinks than at the age of two, and this may be because children become better able to demand and reject foods as they grow.

When the children were two, less than 8.1% soft drinks more than once a day. By the age of five, this increased to 28.7%. Similarly, aged two, 6.4% of the children never ate vegetables, but this rate increased nearly five times (27.9%) by the time they turned five.

Children’s diets deteriorated when parents believed that they were going through financial hardships. For parents whose financial situation changed from ‘feeling comfortable’ to ‘finding it difficult ’to cope as their offspring grew from age two to age five, children ate fewer varieties of fruit and vegetables, and ate crisps and sweets more often.

Among families whose income did not change, children from families with a low income were more likely to have poorer diets to begin with. This group also had diets improve the most from age 2 to age 5. Two in ten (20.5 per cent) of these children lowered their sweet consumption compared with only one in 10 (11.2 per cent) in high-income homes.

These findings are published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2014/01/17/jech-2013-203308.short?q=w_jech

 

Valeria is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Population Health Studies. Morag is a Research Fellow with the Scottish Collaboration for Public Health Research and Policy. Both Valeria and Morag completed their PhDs at CRFR.

 

 

 

How active are our children?

Walk past any school playground or park and you might think that our children look pretty active, but are they?

Findings from the Millennium Cohort Study published today show that only half of 7-year-olds across the UK achieve the current recommendation for physical activity (60 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity every day).

This is the first time that a UK wide survey has used an objective measurement of activity (using accelerometers with 6,000 children) and as such is an important piece of new research.

The good news is that children in Scotland are the most active in the UK.  52.5% of children in Scotland met the recommended level, compared 51.7% in Wales, 50.9% in England and 43.4% in Northern Ireland.

The bad news is that the difference in activity levels between boys and girls (at UK level) is worryingly high. Just 37.8% of girls met the recommended level of physical activity, compared with 63.3% of boys. Clearly, gender differences in physical activity start young, but continue into adolescence and adulthood.

Findings from the Growing Up in Scotland study (GUS) highlight the factors associated with low activity levels and high levels of ‘screen time’ amongst six year olds. A report published last year found that the factors associated with low physical activity are: mother’s lower physical activity, a less warm mother-child relationship, mothers not being aware of the 60 minutes per day recommendation and not having a swimming pool nearby.

The factors associated with high ‘screen time’ are: mother’s high screen time, a TV in the child’s bedroom, fewer mother and child shared activities, fewer rules about behaviour, greater social deprivation and poor quality local green spaces.

The MCS researchers suggest that a comprehensive policy response is required to increase the time that children spend in more intense physical activity and to reduce the time spent being sedentary. This should include a focus on parents’ modelling of behaviour, as well as making sure that all children have safe places to play outside.

Link to BBC coverage

 

Family holidays: What does Growing up in Scotland research tell us?

Having a summer holiday is something many families in Scotland take for granted. GUS dissemination officer Lesley Kelly reports on the holiday habits of families with young children in Scotland  

Time spent away from the pressures of daily routines provides a much needed respite for many. But for nearly a third of families with young children, a summer holiday is unaffordable.

Research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation finds that people in the UK agree that families with children should be able to afford one-week’s self-catering in a caravan/ family resort in the UK as part of an acceptable minimum standard of living.

The thousands of families taking part in the Growing Up Scotland study are asked ‘Do you have a holiday away from home for at least one week a year, whilst not staying with relatives at their home?’

Amongst families with children aged 6 years, two-thirds say that they have an annual holiday.

28% of families say that they would like a holiday but cannot afford it.

A further 6% say that they do not need or want a holiday at the moment.

Not surprisingly, families in the highest income groups are more likely to say that they have an annual holiday.

89% of families in the top income group (with a household income of greater than £37,500) say that they have a holiday, compared with 35% of families in the lowest income group.

Half of families living in the most deprived areas manage a holiday, compared with 82% of families living in the most affluent areas of Scotland.

72% of couple families have an annual holiday, compared with 43% of lone parent families. Three quarters of children born to mothers in their thirties have a holiday, compared with less than half (44%) of children born to mothers under 20.

Not everyone wants a family summer holiday. But low incomes means many families don’t get the choice.

Lesley Kelly is dissemination officer with Growing up in Scotland www.growingupinscotland.org.uk

Grandparents to the rescue…?!

The high and rising cost of professional childcare has been in the news recently, but there has been little mention of grandparents, who provide a substantial proportion of the child-care needed by young families.

At the simplest level, rising costs of childcare mean more children living in poverty. In March this year, Save the Children expressed concern that 3.5 million children in the UK are living in poverty, the majority of them in working households. Commenting on the recent welfare reforms in the UK (‘Universal Credit’), Save the Children pointed out that these would hit poorer working mothers hardest, whereas evidence from abroad suggests that enabling mothers to work reduces child poverty.

In reaction to the recent media focus on childcare costs, many commentators have noted that excessive increases in costs can mean the second income in two-income families is almost entirely spent on childcare, so that there is scant financial incentive to continue that employment. However, dropping out of employment during children’s early years can have enduring impacts, in terms of lost skills and/or failure to progress in a career structure, resulting in lower income and job satisfaction when resuming work. And of course it is most often women, as mothers, who are the ‘second’ workers. This scenario reinforces gender inequality in earnings in later life.

The Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) survey has been following the lives of thousands of children right across Scotland from infancy through to, currently, the end of primary school, but further sweeps of data collection are planned, up to teens. A recent GUS report looked at the role of grandparents in the lives of young families when the children were aged 6 years old, in 2010/11.

The report found that virtually all GUS children had at least one grandparent (99%), and 87% had at least one grandparent living nearby (within 20-30 minute drive). GUS has found that grandparents are a key source of regular informal childcare for parents throughout children’s early years, and that when children started school, reliance on grandparents increased markedly, to 67% among parents who used any childcare. Starting school, with the ensuing see-saw need for childcare depending on whether it is term time or holidays, poses a challenge for families, so this is a stage where grandparents can most support working parents by providing ‘flexible’ childcare. This generally requires grandparents to be not fully employed and, one would expect, to live reasonably close by.

One finding of the survey was that children in the highest income households were more likely to have no local grandparents (22%) than children in the lowest income households (8%). Nevertheless, in term-time, the proportion of children receiving ‘some hours’ of weekly grandparent care is highest among higher income groups, ranging from 43% in the highest income group to 24% in the lowest income group. And in the school holidays, receipt of childcare from a grandparent for more than 14 hours a week shows a similar pattern, ranging from 23% in the highest income group to 11% in the lowest. So, higher income families seem to be able to make more use of grandparent care, even when they are less likely be living ‘locally’. Perhaps is it to do with age (given that grandparents of children in higher incomes group tend to be older), and whether still employed. In this regard, the recent removal of compulsory retirement ages, and the prevailing economic situation and its impact on pensions, might mean that in subsequent survey sweeps it will be found that fewer families are benefiting from grandparent care, further exacerbating the adverse impacts of rising childcare costs.

Grandparents play an important and multi-faceted role in children’s lives, and in addition they are an invaluable childcare resource for parents, especially when children start school and flexible care is needed. It could be argued that this role is becoming more important with recent changes in welfare, and ever-increasing childcare costs, but clearly, working families will face challenges if more grandparents tend to continue in fulltime employment until older ages.

Pamela Warner, CRFR

Read the full GUS report at: Jamieson, L., Warner, P., and Bradshaw, P. (2012). Growing Up in Scotland: The involvement of grandparents in children's lives, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.

In addition to being a Co-Director at CRFR, Pam is Reader in Medical Statistics and is a member of staff at the University's Centre for Population Health Sciences (CPHS) teaching on their Master in Public Health.

Consulting on a Children & Young People Bill

CRFR recently submitted a response to the Scottish Government's consultation on a proposal for a Children & Young People Bill.

CRFR has undertaken a range of relevant research, to comment on key aspects of the Bill: i.e. children's rights, children's wellbeing and early learning and child care provision.

Our view was that the proposed Bill, if underlined by processes and commitments, could ensure that children's rights are given more breadth and depth in policy making and practice. Certainly, the Ministerial support for 'making rights real' for children is very welcome.

However, we raised a number of points for consideration. 

• The Government should include a much clearer statement on how it will incorporate the UN Convention on the Rights on the Child (UNCRC) into domestic law, including timeframes.
• There needs to be more clarity on the duty on Scottish Ministers to "take appropriate steps to further the rights of children and young" and the duty should be extended to public bodies.
• Children's rights need to be the overarching framework for the Bill, and duties on public bodies should be focused on improving rights -- which incorporate children's wellbeing.
• Any strategies aimed at improving school readiness via a pre-school setting need to include, for disadvantaged children, strategies that seek to influence the child's home environment and parenting experiences at the same time.
• Children should be consulted, along with parents, to develop early learning and childcare provision.
• Developments in early learning and childcare must marry the need for high-quality care with flexible and accessible provision that also enables parents to take up employment. This is not happening for many families, particularly those in more disadvantaged circumstances or who are affected by disability.

 Please read our full response, with links to evidence, at:

http://www.crfr.ac.uk/consultations.html

Is there something special about family meals?

More Scottish teenagers are overweight or obese than anywhere else in Europe (IASO data for 2012). This single statement points to an urgent need to improve children's diet. Recent research from Valeria Skafida at CRFR looks at the eating habits of toddlers under 5 years of age and asks if and why family meals promote better eating habits.

Research has shown that family meals are generally linked to positive nutritional outcomes, yet it remains unclear exactly what it is about them that are so beneficial. Using data from Growing Up in Scotland (www.growingupinscotland.org.uk) this research looked at the quality of children's diets to explore its relationships to families meal habits, how often family's ate together, meal enjoyment and different family characterstics.

The research found a number of factors which were significantly associated with healthier diets in toddlers, including:

• eating a main meal and limiting snacking
• having regular meal times
• eating the same food as parents
• eating in a dining space rather than in bedrooms or living rooms
• enjoying meal times as a 'time to talk to each other'
• being the first-born child

Interestingly, and contributing something new to our knowledge in this area, this research found that eating at the same time as parents or eating together as a family was not a significant indicator of a nutritious diet. Eating the same food as parents was the aspect most strongly linked to dietary quality in toddlers.

For more discussion about these findings please read our latest briefing: Is there something special about family meals? Exploring how family meal habits relate to young children's diets.

This research is part of ongoing postdoctoral reserach looking at the changing food habits of children in the context of family life. Please contact Valeria at valeria.skafida@ed.ac.uk.

We publish 6-8 research briefings every year. Read them all at: http://www.crfr.ac.uk/pubbriefings.html.

Recording research impact

Like many of our partners and colleagues we sit within an institution churning out research every day. But what happens to the research once we have published it, shared it and talked about it? Following on from our blog from Sarah Morton earlier this month, we thought it would be good to demonstrate one way of capturing impact.

We are fortunate at CRFR to have dedicated knowledge exchange staff: events management staff, communications specialists, graphic designers, dissemination officers and development officers. We work together to disseminate findings and to work with policy makers and organisations to influence services and policies.

Lesley Kelly, Dissemination Officer for the Growing up in Scotland study, and Dawn Cattanach, CRFR Graphic Designer, recently produced this video asking people why they are interested in GUS findings, how they use them, and what impact the evidence has on their work.

Click on the link to view the GUS video: http://vimeo.com/46680710

We regularly post new findings from the Growing Up in Scotland study. See posts on children at age 6, how parents are parenting, and a summary of evidence presented to Scottish Parliament.  Researchers working on GUS are currently analysing data from the most recent group of 'GUS babies'  (born 2010/11). The data from this group can be compared with data from children born 2004/5, to determine if there are any changes in outcomes for the two birth groups and to examine whether these changes may be related to changes in policy & service provision. Reports are not due until next year, but they are eagerly awaited and we will post findings on this blog and on the GUS website once published.

CRFR offer consultancy in research dissemination and event management. For more information please contact Vivien Smith.

Children at aged 6: grandparents, school and weight

Virtually all children have at least one living grandparent and the majority have three for more grandparents alive, according to key findings from the annual Growing up in Scotland (GUS) report.

The Growing up in Scotland (GUS) reports look at life as a child in Scotland. This year the children are aged 6, and the report focusses on three areas: the involvement of grandparents, early experiences at primary school, and weight and physical activity.

 The 2012 findings include:

Grandparents

• 99% of children have at least one living grandparent and 80% have three or more of their grandparents alive
• A significant minority of children do not have a local grandparent at aged 3 (42%).
• Children in the highest income households (22%) were most likely to have no grandparents living locally, as compared to children in the lowest income households (8%).
• Local grandparents are more likely to be the maternal grandmother and grandfather.
• Maternal grandparents tend to be closer and have more contact with grandchildren than paternal grandparents.
• 64% parents of children whose mother were under 20 at the time of their birth stay overnight with their maternal grandparents at least once a month, compared with 12% amongst children whose mothers were 40 or over at birth (and 31% of all children).
• Reliance on grandparents increases markedly when children started school, with 67% of parents making use of grandparents for childcare. High income households are more likely to use grandparent care during term time (43%) and during holiday time (23%) - even when grandparents are not local, as compared to low income households (24% and 11% respectively).

Early experiences at school

• Nearly all parents felt their children had adjusted well to starting school, although some 22% felt that their child was happier with the way he or she learned things in pre-school.
• Children who attended pre-school at a private or partnership nursery were perceived to be more ready for school than children who did not attend a nursery, and generally boys were perceived to have more problems adjusting to school than girls.
• Virtually all parents had attended at least one parental involvement activity since their child had started school. The most common activity (86%) was visiting their child's classroom.. Just 5% had not participated in any activities or events.
• Family type was associated with higher parental involvement. Lone parents (23%) were slightly less likely to have attended four or more events than couple families (30%), and young mothers aged 20-29 years (30%) were less likely to attend four or more events than mothers aged 40 or older (46%).
• Most children (71%) receive homework everyday, and virtually all of these children (93%) said that they always completed it.
• 95% of parents were involved in helping their children with their homework, but many others were involved too, particularly grandparents (29%) and siblings (21%).

Obesity and activity

• Among GUS children, 22% were overweight (including obese) and 9% were obese.
• 15% of these children exercised for less than the recommended level of 60 minutes a day and 31% either watched television or been on the computer/games consule for 3+ hours on a typical weekday.
• Only 14% of mothers recognised their child as being overweight, although mother's were more likely to recognise their child was overweight if their child was a girl, the mother was overweight herself or if the child was obese.
• Factors which increased likelihood of the child being overweight or obese were:
• The mother being overweight or obese
• Frequent snacking on sweets or crisps at toddler age
• Skipping breakfast
• Not eating the main meal in a dining area of the home
• Low  parental supervision

More information about the study can be found at: http://www.growingupinscotland.org/.
The research findings can be downloaded from the Scottish Government website at:

Growing up in Scotland: The involvement of grandparents
Growing up in Scotland: Early Experiences of Primary School - the transition to school
Growing up in Scotland: Early Experiences of Primary School - parental involvement
Growing up in Scotland: Overweight, obesity and activity

Full reports are also available.