Cited by 198Child Nutrition and Water AccessEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare

Inequalities in early childhood care and development in low/middle-income countries: 2010–2018

Open access
Lu, Chunling, Cuartas, Jorge, Fink, Günther, McCoy, Dana, Liu, Kai, Li, Zhihui, Daelmans, Bernadette, Richter, Linda·2020·BMJ Global Health

Abstract

Background: Inequalities in early childhood development (ECD) tend to persist into adulthood and amplify across the life course. To date, little research on inequalities in early childhood care and development in low/middle-income countries has been available to guide governments, donors and civil society in identifying which young children and families should be targeted by policies and programmes to improve nurturing care that could prevent them from being left behind. Methods: Using data from 135 Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys between 2010 and 2018, we assessed levels and trends of inequalities in exposure to risks of stunting or extreme poverty (under age 5; levels in 85 and trends in 40 countries), early attendance of early care and education programmes (36-59 months; 65 and 17 countries), home stimulation (36-59 months; 62 and 14 countries) and child development according to the Early Childhood Development Index (36-59 months; 60 and 13 countries). Inequalities within countries were measured as the absolute gap in three domains-child gender, household wealth and residential area-and compared across regions and country income groups. Results: 63% of children were not exposed to stunting or extreme poverty; 39% of 3-4-year olds attended early care and education; and 69% received a level of reported home stimulation defined as adequate. Sub-Saharan Africa had the lowest proportion of children not exposed to stunting or extreme poverty (45%), attending early care and education (24%) and receiving adequate home stimulation (47%). Substantial gaps in all indicators were found across country income groups, residential areas and household wealth categories. There were no significant reductions in gaps over time for a subset of countries with available data in two survey rounds. Conclusions: Available data indicate large inequalities in early experiences and outcomes. Efforts of reducing these inequalities must focus on the poorest families and those living in rural areas in the poorest countries. Improving and applying population-level measurements on ECD in more countries over time are important for ensuring equal opportunities for young children globally.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002314

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The same analysis highlighted that the children had less home stimulation and low attendance at early childcare education, indicators associated with a poorer status in subsequent school learning, labour market productivity and health.

    “The study also highlighted that the children had less home stimulation and low attendance at early childcare education; indicators associated with a poorer status in subsequent school learning, labour market productivity and health [3].”

    From Assessing early child development and its association with stunting and schistosome infections in rural Zimbabwean children using the Griffiths Scales of Child Development (2021) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Results report that 69% of children received adequate home stimulation and 39% of 3–4-year-olds attended early care and education, supporting the claim of limited access. The Introduction says early childhood development is a foundation for later education, work productivity and health, but this analysis does not establish that its home-stimulation or attendance indicators are associated with those later outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The authors of this study correctly highlight that these studies were handicapped by the lack of reliable data from several low-income countries and poor representation of rural communities.

    “The authors of this study correctly highlight that these studies were handicapped by the lack of reliable data from several low-income countries and in cases where there were data available; there was poor representation of rural communities [3].”

    From Assessing early child development and its association with stunting and schistosome infections in rural Zimbabwean children using the Griffiths Scales of Child Development (2021) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Discussion (page not provided) says the analysis covered only a limited number of low- and middle-income countries and that high-quality, comparable developmental data remain limited. It does not say rural communities were poorly represented in the available surveys; its rural–urban findings concern differences in children’s outcomes, not survey representation. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The analysis also showed that children in urban areas or those in the richest household scored better on all indicators of child development than those in rural areas or those from poorer households.

    “Furthermore, the analysis also showed that children in urban areas or those in the richest household scored better on all indicators of child development than those in rural areas or those from poorer households.”

    From Assessing early child development and its association with stunting and schistosome infections in rural Zimbabwean children using the Griffiths Scales of Child Development (2021) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Discussion (page not specified) says that, in most countries, urban children and children in the wealthiest households fared better on the four indicators than rural children and those in the poorest households. The claim omits the ‘most countries’ qualifier and broadens ‘poorest’ to ‘poorer’; the Methods also state that wealth inequality was not measured for the risk-exposure indicator. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A recent analysis of indicators of early childhood experiences and outcomes in low and middle-income countries indicated that children in sub-Saharan Africa were exposed to stunting or extreme poverty.

    “A recent analysis of indicators of early childhood experiences and outcomes in low and middle-income countries comprised of 135 national household surveys, collected between 2010 and 2018 from 94 countries indicated that children in sub-Saharan Africa were exposed to stunting or extreme poverty [3].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [22]Grantham-McGregor S, Cheung YB, Cueto S, et al Developmental potential in the first 5 years for children in developing countries. Lancet 2007. PMC2270351 17208643

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lu, C., Cuartas, J., Fink, G., McCoy, D., Liu, K., Li, Z., Daelmans, B., & Richter, L.
Affiliations
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute (CH)
  • Renmin University of China (CN)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
  • University of the Witwatersrand (ZA)
Corresponding author
Lu, Chunling
Venue
BMJ Global Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2020-02
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
e002314
ISSN
2059-7908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3004471233
Cited by
188
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 4
FWCI
17.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Global Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • edoc (University of Basel) (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • edoc (University of Basel)
Funders
Countdown to 2030 for Maternal Child and Adolescent Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Child Nutrition and Water Access
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Poverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Keywords
early childhood care and development, inequality, stunting, extreme poverty, early care and education, home stimulation, child development, household wealth, residential areas, gender inequality, urban-rural differences, low-middle income countries, sub-Saharan Africa
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Child, Preschool, Developing Countries, Humans, Income, Infant, Poverty, Surveys and Questionnaires, Socioeconomic Factors

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review