Affective teacher–child relationships have frequently been investigated in school settings, but less attention has been devoted to these relationships in after-school care. This study explored caregiver- (N = 90) and child-informed reports (N = 90) of the affective caregiver–child relationship (N = 180 dyads) in Dutch after-school care, exploring gender differences at caregiver and child level and the relationship with a gender match between children and caregivers. The caregivers and children reported relatively high levels of closeness and relatively low level of conflict and dependency/autonomy support, irrespective of gender. Multilevel regression analyses revealed that a gender match between child and caregiver was associated with teacher-reported closeness: levels were highest in female-girl dyads and lowest in male-boy dyads. Further, boys indicated the highest levels of autonomy in male-boy dyads, whereas girls indicated the lowest levels in female-girl dyads. Masculinity of staff was associated with more child-reported autonomy support, whereas femininity predicted caregiver-reported closeness in the relationship.
There is much attention for the quality of the pedagogical vision of after school day-care (bso) nowadays (e.g. Schreuder et al, 2011). My PhD-study concentrates on social development and discourse practices of young children (4 – 7) in the bso. In this poster I will show strong strategies in conflict management of one caretaker. Strong strategies stimulate agency and autonomy of children (Mashford-Scott & Church, 2011). Weak strategies don’t. This study wants to contribute to qualitative evidence for how interactions of caretakers and children in after school day care can enable children’s social development
Background: The substitution of healthcare is a way to control rising healthcare costs. The Primary Care Plus (PC+) intervention of the Dutch ‘Blue Care’ pioneer site aims to achieve this feat by facilitating consultations with medical specialists in the primary care setting. One of the specialties involved is dermatology. This study explores referral decisions following dermatology care in PC+ and the influence of predictive patient and consultation characteristics on this decision. Methods: This retrospective study used clinical data of patients who received dermatology care in PC+ between January 2015 and March 2017. The referral decision following PC+, (i.e., referral back to the general practitioner (GP) or referral to outpatient hospital care) was the primary outcome. Stepwise logistic regression modelling was used to describe variations in the referral decisions following PC+, with patient age and gender, number of PC+ consultations, patient diagnosis and treatment specialist as the predicting factors. Results: A total of 2952 patients visited PC+ for dermatology care. Of those patients with a registered referral, 80.2% (N = 2254) were referred back to the GP, and 19.8% (N = 558) were referred to outpatient hospital care. In the multivariable model, only the treating specialist and patient’s diagnosis independently influenced the referral decisions following PC+. Conclusion: The aim of PC+ is to reduce the number of referrals to outpatient hospital care. According to the results, the treating specialist and patient diagnosis influence referral decisions. Therefore, the results of this study can be used to discuss and improve specialist and patient profiles for PC+ to further optimise the effectiveness of the initiative.
