4.5 Article

Prenatal, Perinatal, and Neonatal Risk Factors for Specific Language Impairment: A Prospective Pregnancy Cohort Study

期刊

出版社

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13-0186

关键词

specific language impairment; prenatal; obstetric

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
  2. University of Western Australia (UWA)
  3. Curtin University
  4. UWA Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences
  5. Raine Medical Research Foundation
  6. Telethon Institute for Child Health Research
  7. Women and Infants Research Foundation
  8. NHMRC [1004065, 1003424]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Although genetic factors are known to play a causal role in specific language impairment (SLI), environmental factors may also be important. This study examined whether there are prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal factors that are associated with childhood SLI. Method: Participants were members of the Raine Study, a prospective cohort investigation of pregnant women and their offspring. Parent report indicated that 26 children had received a clinical diagnosis of SLI. Data from antenatal and birth medical records were compared between the children with SLI and typically developing comparison children (N = 1,799). Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the SLI and comparison groups in the individual prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal factors examined. Aggregate risk scores were calculated for each period on the basis of factors known to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorder. There were no group differences in aggregate risk scores in the prenatal and perinatal periods. However, significantly more children in the SLI group (50%) compared with the comparison group (27.6%) experienced 2 or more risk factors during the neonatal period. Conclusion: The vast majority of prenatal, perinatal, and neonatal complications do not play a clear causal role in childhood SLI. However, poor neonatal health may signify increased risk for SLI.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据