Robust data on the prevalence of childhood disability and the circumstances and characteristics of disabled children is crucial to understanding the relationship between impairment and social disadvantage. It is also crucial for public policy development aimed at reducing the prevalence of childhood disability and providing appropriate and timely service provision. This paper reports prevalence rates for childhood disability in the United Kingdom (UK) and describes the social and household circumstances of disabled children, comparing these where appropriate to those of non-disabled children.

The aim of this study was to provide an overview of studies in which the impact of the 2008 economic crisis on child health was reported. Structured searches of PubMed, and ISI Web of Knowledge, were conducted. Quantitative and qualitative studies reporting health outcomes on children, published since 2007 and related to the 2008 economic crisis were included. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion. Data were synthesised as a narrative review. Five hundred and six titles and abstracts were reviewed, from which 22 studies were included. The risk of bias for quantitative studies was mixed while qualitative studies showed low risk of bias. An excess of 28,000–50,000 infant deaths in 2009 was estimated in sub-Saharan African countries, and increased infant mortality in Greece was reported. Increased price of foods was related to worsening nutrition habits in disadvantaged families worldwide. An increase in violence against children was reported in the U.S., and inequalities in health-related quality of life appeared in some countries. Most studies suggest that the economic crisis has harmed children’s health, and disproportionately affected the most vulnerable groups. There is an urgent need for further studies to monitor the child health effects of the global recession and to inform appropriate public policy responses.

Objective: To determine the association of socioeconomic disadvantage with the prevalence of childhood disabling chronic conditions in high-income countries. Study design: Systematic review and meta-analyses. Data sources: 6 electronic databases, relevant websites, reference lists and experts in the field. Study selection: 160 observational studies conducted in high-income countries with data on socioeconomic status and disabling chronic conditions in childhood, published between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 2013. Data extraction and synthesis: Abstracts were reviewed, full papers obtained, and papers identified for inclusion by 2 independent reviewers. Inclusion decisions were checked by a third reviewer. Where reported, ORs were extracted for low versus high socioeconomic status. For studies reporting raw data but not ORs, ORs were calculated. Narrative analysis was undertaken for studies without data suitable for meta-analysis. Results: 126 studies had data suitable for meta-analysis. ORs for risk estimates were: all-cause disabling chronic conditions 1.72 (95% CI 1.48 to 2.01); psychological disorders 1.88 (95% CI 1.68 to 2.10); intellectual disability 2.41 (95% CI 2.03 to 2.86); activity-limiting asthma 2.20 (95% CI 1.87 to 2.85); cerebral palsy 1.42 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.61); congenital abnormalities 1.41 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.61); epilepsy 1.38 (95% CI 1.20 to 1.59); sensory impairment 1.70 (95% CI 1.39 to 2.07). Heterogeneity was high across most estimates (I ² >75%). Of the 34 studies without data suitable for meta-analysis, 26 reported results consistent with increased risk associated with low socioeconomic status. Conclusions: The findings indicate that, in high-income countries, childhood disabling chronic conditions are associated with social disadvantage. Although evidence of an association is consistent across different countries, the review provides limited evidence to explain the association; future research, using longitudinal data, will be required to distinguish low socioeconomic status as the cause or consequence of childhood disabling chronic conditions and the aetiological pathways and mechanisms.

Inequities have a profound impact on the health and development of children globally. While inequities are greatest in the world’s poorest countries, even in rich nations poorer children have poorer health and developmental outcomes. From birth through childhood to adolescence, morbidity, mortality, growth and development are socially determined, resulting in the most disadvantaged having the highest risk of poor health outcomes. Inequities in childhood impact across the life course. We consider four categories of actions to promote equity: strengthening individuals, strengthening communities, improving living and working conditions, and promoting healthy macropolicies. Inequitiescanbe reduced but action to reduce inequities requires political will. The International Society for Social Paediatrics and Child Health (ISSOP) calls on governments, policy makers, paediatricians and professionals working with children and their organisations to act to reduce child health inequity as a priority. ISSOP recommends the following: governments act to reduce child poverty; ensure rights of all children to healthcare, education and welfare are protected; basic health determinants such as adequate nutrition, clean water and sanitation are available to all children. Paediatric and child health organisations ensure that their members are informed of the impact of inequities on children’s well-being and across the life course; include child health inequities in curricula for professionals in training; publish policy statements relevant to their country on child health inequities; advocate for evidence-based pro-equity interventions using a child rights perspective; advocate for affordable, accessible and quality healthcare for all children; promote research to monitor inequity as well as results of interventions in their child populations. Paediatricians and child health professionals be aware of the impact of social determinants of health on children under their care; ensure their clinical services are accessible and acceptable to all children and families within the constraints of their country’s health services; engage in advocacy at community and national level.