1. Objectifs

Intentions :
«The primary objective of this study was to measure the impact of Quebec’s universal childcare policy, and specifically the utilization of subsidized childcare, on children’s health, including mental health outcomes and substance use in adolescence. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether the impact varies across socioeconomic status (SES), given that the Quebec Family Policy’s aim is to alter the distribution of social determinants of health.» (p. iv)

2. Méthode

Échantillon/Matériau :
Les données de l’Étude longitudinale du développement des enfants du Québec (ÉLDEQ) ont été utilisées. Au total, 2 120 enfants nés en 1997 et 1998 constituent cet échantillon.

Instruments :
Questionnaires

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé

The results do not show «evidence of differences at age 15 years in externalizing and internalizing behaviours, or substance use, between children who attended a universal subsidized childcare program […] compared with children in private care […] or not in formal childcare. [The authors] also observed that the impacts of the Quebec universal childcare program on adolescents did not differ across levels of parental socio-economic status, represented by maternal education and a family SES index score, for mental health outcomes, and were inconsistent for substance use outcomes.» (p. 45) However, the study shows that mothers «with children in formal childcare (both CPE and non-CPE care) were more likely to have any degree of post-secondary education compared to mothers who did not use formal care. Children in maternal care were also more likely to come from a low-income family. Thus, those imbalances strongly suggest that the choice of childcare arrangement is not random, and that children who could potentially benefit the most (and are targeted by the policy) might not have access to subsidized childcare spots. […] Taken together, it highlights the importance of achieving comparability of maternal and family characteristics between children in different childcare arrangements, to avoid the risk of confounding bias.» (p. 47-48)