Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics最新文献

Objective: (1) Evaluate differences in demographic distributions between those with autism alone and those with autism concomitant with anxiety and (2) assess demographic factors associated with receipt of psychological therapy in patients with autism.

Methods: Using deidentified health care claims data, we extracted all encounters among children with the International Classification of Diseases-10-CM for Autism Spectrum Disorder (F84) and flagged those with concomitant anxiety (F41.9). Extracted data included age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance status, and Rural-Urban Continuum Codes. Current procedural terminology codes for psychological services were extracted. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests, χ2 tests of association, and logistic regression.

Results: Demographic differences between children/adolescents with autism alone versus autism concomitant with anxiety were noted for age, sex, and race/ethnicity, with a greater prevalence of autism/anxiety identified in older-aged children and children identifying as female and non-Hispanic White residing in an urban area. While 21% of those included in this study had received psychotherapy, the percentages within the autism only and autism/anxiety groups were 12% and 50%, respectively (p < 0.001). Children/adolescents who were older age quartile, resided in an urban residence, and with a concomitant diagnosis of anxiety were more likely to receive psychological services, while non-Hispanic Other were less likely to, compared with the reference of non-Hispanic White.

Conclusion: We identified demographic disparities in the diagnosis of autism versus autism with concomitant anxiety, including age, sex, race/ethnicity, and residence location. Age quartile, urban location, and concomitant anxiety were associated with increased likelihood of receipt of psychological services.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to discover the care meanings of facilitators and barriers to detection and intervention for developmental delay among Head Start preschool-aged children, as viewed by parents, teachers, and primary care providers.

Methods: We used a qualitative focus group design and broad cultural lens to understand similarities and differences in family and professional care, as Head Start programs educate preschoolers living in poverty who are disproportionately from ethno-racial minoritized groups. We sought the perspectives of 15 Head Start parents equally representing Black, Latino(a), and White parents, 17 teachers, and 11 healthcare providers to discover facilitators and barriers to adherence with professional recommendations.

Results: We found that silos in professional communications, parent distrust, knowledge deficits, and stigma were barriers to obtaining developmental recommendations. Participants also identified missed opportunities to facilitate interagency coordination, parental advocacy of a child's developmental needs, and professional alliances to take collaborative actions for early identification and treatment. Furthermore, a subculture of poverty adversely influenced adherence to developmental recommendations, and ethno-racial biases affected Black and Latino(a) families' follow-through.

Conclusion: Our findings highlight how the lack of coordination between sectors resulted in the dismissal of parental concerns or denial of services by 1 system or the other, thus, at the very least reducing the child's chances for earlier intervention and treatment. We also identified potential benefits to children when the barriers of poverty and ethnoracial bias are addressed by professionals with coordinated actions, and new systems are developed for sharing developmental screening results and partnering to coordinate care across the preschool and primary healthcare settings.

Objective: To examine whether maternal cannabis use during early pregnancy is associated with offspring attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and disruptive behavior disorders (DBD).

Methods: We conducted a population-based retrospective birth cohort study of children (N = 141,570) born between 2011 and 2018 to pregnant individuals (N = 117,130) in Kaiser Permanente Northern California universally screened for any prenatal cannabis use at the entrance to prenatal care (at ∼8-10 wk gestation). Prenatal cannabis use was defined as (1) self-reported use and/or a positive toxicology test, (2) self-reported use, (3) a positive toxicology test, and (4) self-reported use frequency. Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusting for maternal characteristics (sociodemographics, other substance use and substance use disorders, prenatal care initiation, comorbidities) examined associations between prenatal cannabis use and offspring ADHD and DBD diagnosed by age 11 years.

Results: The sample of pregnant individuals was 27.2% Asian/Pacific Islander, 5.7% Black, 24.5% Hispanic, and 38.8% non-Hispanic White, with a mean (SD) age of 30.9 (5.2) years; 4.6% screened positive for any cannabis use (0.4% daily, 0.5% weekly, 1.1% monthly or less, 2.7% unknown frequency); 3.92% had a positive toxicology test and 1.8% self-reported use; 7.7% of offspring had ADHD and 6.8% had DBD. Maternal prenatal cannabis use was not associated with ADHD (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 0.84, 95% CI, 0.70-1.01), and there was an inverse association with DBD (aHR: 0.83, 95% CI, 0.71-0.97), which remained when cannabis was defined by toxicology testing but not by self-report. Frequency of use was not associated with outcomes.

Conclusion: Maternal prenatal cannabis use was not associated with an increased risk of offspring ADHD or DBD.

Objective: Despite long-standing racial and ethnic disparities in autism spectrum (AS) diagnosis, recent research suggests that overall, greater numbers of Black and Latine children are now diagnosed with AS as compared with non-Latine White (NLW) children in some US regions. However, gaps remain in the equitable detection of Black and Latine children with AS without significant developmental impairment. The objective of this study was to determine whether the clinical profiles of young children evaluated for AS across a statewide system of early autism diagnosis in Indiana vary by race and ethnicity.

Methods: We examined racial and ethnic differences in: (1) AS symptom severity, (2) developmental functioning, (3) adaptive functioning, and (4) behavior problems in a sample of 147 children, aged 14 to 48 months (M = 2.6 years), referred for AS evaluation.

Results: Clinical profiles of young children evaluated differed significantly by race and ethnicity, with Black and Latine children exhibiting lower developmental ( p = 0.008) and adaptive abilities ( p = 0.01) and higher AS symptoms ( p = 0.03) as compared with NLW children.

Conclusion: Potential explanations for findings include racial and ethnic differences in family and community awareness and knowledge about AS and follow-through on evaluation referral, both driven by social determinants of health (SDOH) affecting minoritized children. Bias in screening and assessment instruments and clinician surveillance, screening, and referral practices may also underlie differences in clinical profiles of children evaluated. Future research is needed to understand the SDOH that influence AS detection and diagnosis to improve equitable access to early diagnosis and intervention.

Case: Gretta is a 3.5-year-old girl with a history of congenital cytomegalovirus, congenital bilateral profound sensorineural hearing loss (SNHL), and bilateral vestibular dysfunction, resulting in frequent falls. She underwent cochlear implantation at 12 months of age and was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder at 2.5 years of age.On presentation for follow-up in the developmental-behavioral pediatrics (DBP) clinic, Gretta's mother reports that Gretta has refused to wear her cochlear implants for the past 5 months. Before that, she seemed to enjoy having access to sound and like dancing to music, and her receptive and expressive language skills, including speech, were progressing. Initially, the rejection of her devices occurred only at preschool. When frustrated or overwhelmed, she would close her eyes and remove her devices for up to 5 minutes before allowing them to be reapplied. Over time, this progressed to a complete refusal to wear her devices at school and then at home, rendering her without access to sound and spoken language.Gretta's mood has become sullen, and she is now having tantrums at school. She physically startles when attempts are made to reintroduce her devices. Her ability to participate in classroom learning or interact with her classmates is limited, as she attends a spoken-language-focused preschool program. A board-certified behavioral analyst, hired by the family, recommended that Gretta not be allowed to participate in classroom activities unless she wears her devices. She now becomes visibly anxious even when in the same room as her devices and repetitively states "no implant, no implant." Her mother is worried about her inability to communicate and has "no idea" what may have changed or sparked her initial refusal to wear the devices.What factors would you consider when determining the cause and function of Gretta's refusal to wear the cochlear implants? How would you guide her parents, teachers, and clinicians to ensure the best developmental and behavioral outcomes for her?

Objective: Medical providers report barriers that prevent them from discussing sexual health with patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). No investigations have examined the perspectives of adults with ASD about their sexual health care experiences.

Methods: Twenty-five verbal young adults diagnosed with ASD and 40 young adults without ASD participated. An 8-item self-report survey assessed frequency of health care visits, age when sexual health was first discussed, and frequency/content of discussions with providers.

Results: The likelihood of discussing sexual health topics did not differ by group, χ 2 s < 3.25; p s > 0.07, except sexual victimization, which the ASD group reported having discussed less than the non-ASD group (32% vs 9%), χ 2 (1, N = 57) = 4.36, p = 0.04. Groups did not differ in their reported comfort level discussing sex/sexual health, having a primary care provider, or frequency of visits. The non-ASD group was significantly more likely to have received sexual health counseling (81%) than ASD group (52%), χ 2 (1, N = 58) = 5.33, p = 0.02. Participants in both groups reported having received sexual health information from similar sources except the ASD group was more likely to receive information from parents than the non-ASD group (68% vs 30%), χ 2 (1, N = 65) = 8.99, p = 0.003.

Conclusion: Participants in the ASD and non-ASD groups reported similar comfort levels with sexual health discussions and access to health providers. Yet, the ASD group received less counseling related to sexual health-particularly sexual victimization screening-suggesting that critical information may be missing. Future studies should determine how to help providers overcome barriers to providing young adults with ASD sexual health aligned with their needs.