-
Frontiers in Psychology 2024Children with autism spectrum disorder may show delays in vocabulary development. Technology-based interventions could facilitate the teaching of different vocabulary...
INTRODUCTION
Children with autism spectrum disorder may show delays in vocabulary development. Technology-based interventions could facilitate the teaching of different vocabulary skills; however, it is still not clear whether technology represents an added value.
METHODS
The current review preregistered in PROSPERO evaluates the efficacy of technology-based interventions in vocabulary learning for children with autism spectrum disorder. We selected articles published in the period 2006-2022 from five databases.
RESULTS
The results identified two group studies, one within subject design, nine single-case studies and one randomized controlled design in participants aged 0-16 years who had used technological devices to learn vocabulary. Overall, five of the 13 studies showed positive results of using technology-assisted intervention, six described mixed results, one described negative result, and one described no differences in technology-assisted intervention. The studies are divided into the categories of efficacy of technology and comparison between technology and non-technology.
DISCUSSION
In summary, technology, such as tablets and computers, might be useful tools to improve vocabulary skills in certain children with ASD. However, the various degrees of impact found in the studies we reviewed indicate that personalized assessments, acknowledgment of previous experiences, and awareness of the context of usage are essential. The contrast with nontechnological approaches highlights the necessity for more detailed studies to pinpoint the precise conditions under which technology-based interventions can offer the most advantages.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
[https://clinicaltrials.gov/], identifier [CRD42021238758].
PubMed: 38817831
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1370965 -
European Review For Medical and... May 2024The objective of this study was to assess whether individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) exhibit a higher prevalence of traumatic dental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to assess whether individuals with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) exhibit a higher prevalence of traumatic dental injuries (TDIs) compared to those without ADHD through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A search strategy using the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) vocabulary was employed for a comprehensive search across various databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase. The Joanna Briggs Institute Summary was utilized for data collection. Additionally, quality assessment, meta-analysis, and bias control were conducted to ensure the reliability of the included studies. A meta-analysis was performed to consolidate the findings of the individual studies.
RESULTS
The prevalence of TDIs among individuals with ADHD ranged from 9.6% to 68.2%, while in the healthy control group, it ranged from 0.8% to 44.7%. The meta-analysis findings revealed that individuals with ADHD had 1.98 times higher odds (OR = 1.98, ranging from 1.51 to 2.59 with 95% CI) of experiencing TDIs compared to individuals without ADHD.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this study suggest a significant association between ADHD and an increased risk of TDIs. Individuals with ADHD were found to be nearly twice as likely to experience TDIs compared to those without ADHD. Efforts should not only be directed towards improving the oral health of this vulnerable group of individuals, but also healthcare practitioners need to be provided with opportunities to create awareness and implement preventive measures to mitigate the risk of TDIs among individuals with ADHD.
Topics: Humans; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Prevalence; Tooth Injuries
PubMed: 38766788
DOI: 10.26355/eurrev_202405_36176 -
Campbell Systematic Reviews Jun 2024High-income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
High-income countries offer social assistance (welfare) programs to help alleviate poverty for people with little or no income. These programs have become increasingly conditional and stringent in recent decades based on the premise that transitioning people from government support to paid work will improve their circumstances. However, many people end up with low-paying and precarious jobs that may cause more poverty because they lose benefits such as housing subsidies and health and dental insurance, while incurring job-related expenses. Conditional assistance programs are also expensive to administer and cause stigma. A guaranteed basic income (GBI) has been proposed as a more effective approach for alleviating poverty, and several experiments have been conducted in high-income countries to investigate whether GBI leads to improved outcomes compared to existing social programs.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this review was to conduct a synthesis of quantitative evidence on GBI interventions in high-income countries, to compare the effectiveness of various types of GBI versus "usual care" (including existing social assistance programs) in improving poverty-related outcomes.
SEARCH METHODS
Searches of 16 academic databases were conducted in May 2022, using both keywords and database-specific controlled vocabulary, without limits or restrictions on language or date. Sources of gray literature (conference, governmental, and institutional websites) were searched in September 2022. We also searched reference lists of review articles, citations of included articles, and tables of contents of relevant journals in September 2022. Hand searching for recent publications was conducted until December 2022.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all quantitative study designs except cross-sectional (at one timepoint), with or without control groups. We included studies in high income countries with any population and with interventions meeting our criteria for GBI: unconditional, with regular payments in cash (not in-kind) that were fixed or predictable in amount. Although two primary outcomes of interest were selected a priori (food insecurity, and poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures), we did not screen studies on the basis of reported outcomes because it was not possible to define all potentially relevant poverty-related outcomes in advance.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We followed the Campbell Collaboration conduct and reporting guidelines to ensure a rigorous methodology. The risk of bias was assessed across seven domains: confounding, selection, attrition, motivation, implementation, measurement, and analysis/reporting. We conducted meta-analyses where results could be combined; otherwise, we presented the results in tables. We reported effect estimates as standard mean differences (SMDs) if the included studies reported them or provided sufficient data for us to calculate them. To compare the effects of different types of interventions, we developed a GBI typology based on the characteristics of experimental interventions as well as theoretical conceptualizations of GBI. Eligible poverty-related outcomes were classified into categories and sub-categories, to facilitate the synthesis of the individual findings. Because most of the included studies analyzed experiments conducted by other researchers, it was necessary to divide our analysis according to the "experiment" stage (i.e., design, recruitment, intervention, data collection) and the "study" stage (data analysis and reporting of results).
MAIN RESULTS
Our searches yielded 24,476 records from databases and 80 from other sources. After screening by title and abstract, the full texts of 294 potentially eligible articles were retrieved and screened, resulting in 27 included studies on 10 experiments. Eight of the experiments were RCTs, one included both an RCT site and a "saturation" site, and one used a repeated cross-sectional design. The duration ranged from one to 5 years. The control groups in all 10 experiments received "usual care" (i.e., no GBI intervention). The total number of participants was unknown because some of the studies did not report exact sample sizes. Of the studies that did, the smallest had 138 participants and the largest had 8019. The risk of bias assessments found "some concerns" for at least one domain in all 27 studies and "high risk" for at least one domain in 25 studies. The risk of bias was assessed as high in 21 studies due to attrition and in 22 studies due to analysis and reporting bias. To compare the interventions, we developed a classification framework of five GBI types, four of which were implemented in the experiments, and one that is used in new experiments now underway. The included studies reported 176 poverty-related outcomes, including one pre-defined primary outcome: food insecurity. The second primary outcome (poverty level assessed using official, national, or international measures) was not reported in any of the included studies. We classified the reported outcomes into seven categories: food insecurity (as a category), economic/material, physical health, psychological/mental health, social, educational, and individual choice/agency. Food insecurity was reported in two studies, both showing improvements (SMD = -0.57, 95% CI: -0.65 to -0.49, and SMD = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.26) which were not pooled because of different study designs. We conducted meta-analyses on four secondary outcomes that were reported in more than one study: subjective financial well-being, self-rated overall physical health, self-rated life satisfaction, and self-rated mental distress. Improvements were reported, except for overall physical health or if the intervention was similar to existing social assistance. The results for the remaining 170 outcomes, each reported in only one study, were summarized in tables by category and subcategory. Adverse effects were reported in some studies, but only for specific subgroups of participants, and not consistently, so these results may have been due to chance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The results of the included studies were difficult to synthesize because of the heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. This was due in part to poverty being multidimensional, so outcomes covered various aspects of life (economic, social, psychological, educational, agency, mental and physical health). Evidence from future studies would be easier to assess if outcomes were measured using more common, validated instruments. Based on our analysis of the included studies, a supplemental type of GBI (provided along with existing programs) may be effective in alleviating poverty-related outcomes. This approach may also be safer than a wholesale reform of existing social assistance approaches, which could have unintended consequences.
PubMed: 38887375
DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1414 -
Journal of Pediatric Psychology May 2024The objective of this study was to systematically review the standardized neurodevelopmental assessments used to study preschool-aged children's cognitive development in...
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to systematically review the standardized neurodevelopmental assessments used to study preschool-aged children's cognitive development in Spanish-speaking Latin America.
METHODS
The authors systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, and ERIC databases for peer-reviewed articles from Spanish-speaking Latin American countries. Articles were included if they measured cognitive development among children aged 2-6 years using at least one standardized assessment tool; 97 articles were included and reviewed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines to assess their use of these tools.
RESULTS
Ninety-seven studies across 13 countries used a total of 41 assessments to measure cognitive development; most widely used were the Wechsler intelligence scales (n = 46/97), particularly the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence and Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (n = 23 and 29, respectively). Other common assessments included the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities (n = 9), Raven's Progressive Matrices (n = 9), Child Neuropsychological Assessment (n = 8), and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (n = 7). In regions where normative data for a given assessment were unpublished, authors commonly used norms from the United States, Mexico, or Spain or did not report standard scores in their analyses.
CONCLUSIONS
The wide range of tools used in these studies presents a challenge for generalizing results when measuring the neurodevelopment of Latin American preschool-aged children. The low availability of normative data for specific regions reveals concerns if some tools are culturally and linguistically appropriate even when Spanish is a common language, particularly in low-resource settings. Future work to forge greater consistency in the use of validated measures, clarity in reporting research methods, and publication of regional normative data would benefit the field.
Topics: Humans; Latin America; Child, Preschool; Child Development; Cognition; Child; Neuropsychological Tests
PubMed: 38244996
DOI: 10.1093/jpepsy/jsad089