4.1 Article

Contribution of maternal smoking during pregnancy and lead exposure to early child behavior problems

期刊

NEUROTOXICOLOGY AND TERATOLOGY
卷 23, 期 1, 页码 13-21

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0892-0362(00)00116-1

关键词

child behavior; cigarette smoking; lead; cross-cultural comparison

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES [R01ES003460] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIEHS NIH HHS [ES03460] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Maternal smoking during pregnancy elevates risk for later child behavior problems. Because prior studies considered only Western settings, where smoking cooccurs with social disadvantage, we examined this association in Yugoslavia, a different cultural setting. Mothers enrolled in pregnancy as the low-exposure group in a prospective study of lead exposure were interviewed about health, including smoking history. A total of 199 children were assessed on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) at ages 4, 4 1/2, and 5 years. Average cumulative blood lead (BPb) was determined from serial samples taken biannually since delivery. Longitudinal analyses were derived from 191 children with available data on behavior and covariates. Smoking was unrelated to social adversity. Controlling for age, gender, birthweight, ethnicity, maternal education, and Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Acceptance, smoking was associated with worse scores on almost all subscales; BPb concentration was related to small increases in the Delinquency subscale. Daughters of smokers received significantly higher scores on Somatic Complaints compared to daughters of nonsmokers, consistent with other work relating biological factors and internalizing problems in young girls. Because the present smoking/child behavior associations persist after control for individual and social factors also related to behavior problems, possible biological mediators are considered. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.1
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