4.3 Article

Quality of general movements and psychiatric morbidity at 9 to 12 years

期刊

EARLY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
卷 85, 期 1, 页码 1-6

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2008.05.005

关键词

General movements; School-age; ADHD; Psychiatric co-morbidity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: General movements (GMs) form the basic motility of young infants. The quality of GMs may predict neurological outcome, but little is known about relationships between GM-quality and behavioral problems, including those resulting in overt psychiatric morbidity. Aim: To explore relationships between abnormal GMs and behavioral problems, in particular relationships between abnormal GMs and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) with or without psychiatric co-morbidity at school-age. Methods: Twenty-five low-risk full term infants and 16 infants at high risk for neurodevelopmental disorder but without cerebral palsy were studied prospectively. GM-quality was assessed during 'writhing' age (around term till 2 months post-term) and 'fidgety' age (2-4 months post-term). GMs were classified into normal and abnormal movements. When the children were 9-12 years, parents completed the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) and provided information on the presence of psychiatric diagnoses; teachers completed the Teachers Report Form (TRF). Both parents and teachers completed a questionnaire on ADHD-like behavior. Results: Abnormal GMs at 'writhing' and 'fidgety' age were related to the presence of ADHD with psychiatric co-morbidity (p<0.05), but not to isolated ADHD. Abnormal GMs at 'fidgety' age were weakly related to problematic behavior at school (TRF-scores) and hyperactive behavior at home (ADHD-questionnaire). Conclusions: This explorative study suggests that abnormal GMs in early infancy may be associated with an increased risk for behavioral problems, in particular for ADHD with psychiatric co-morbidity at school-age. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.3
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