Search

Aim: To compare hospital admission patterns after the first year of life in Australian children with developmental disabilities and children with no known disability, according to maternal country of birth and Indigenous status.Method: This was a retrospective cohort study using linked data across health, disability, and hospital admission databases. The study investigated 656 174 children born in Western Australia between 1983 and 2008 with a total of 1 091 834 records of hospital admissions.Results: Children with no known disability born to Indigenous mothers had the highest rate of hospital admissions compared to children of non-Indigenous mothers. Children of foreign-born mothers from low-income countries had the highest rate of hospital admissions if disability was present. Children with cerebral palsy (CP) with or without associated intellectual disability had the highest rate of hospital admissions among children with developmental disability, especially if mothers were foreign-born.Interpretation: Children with CP and intellectual disability, particularly from minority backgrounds (Indigenous Australian and foreign-born mothers), were at higher risk of being admitted to hospital after the first year of life.What This Paper Adds: Hospital admissions in Australian children with and without disabilities differ according to maternal country of birth. Hospital admission rates in children without a developmental disability were greatest for Australian-born Indigenous children. Disabled Australian-born children of foreign-born mothers from low-income countries had the highest hospital admission rates. Hospital admission risk was greatest for Australian-born children with cerebral palsy, especially if mothers were foreign-born. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Aim: We examined key features of two outcome measures for social dysfunction and autism spectrum disorder traits, the Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition (SRS-2) and the Social Skills Improvement System - Rating Scales (SSIS-RS), in children with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). The aim of the study was to provide objective evidence as to which behavioural endpoint should be used in clinical trials.Method: Cross-sectional behavioural and demographic data were pooled from four paediatric NF1 tertiary referral centres in Australia and the United States (N=122; 65 males, 57 females; mean age [SD] 9y 2mo [3y], range 3-15y).Results: Distributions of SRS-2 and SSIS-RS scores were unimodal and both yielded deficits, with a higher proportion of severely impaired scores on the SRS-2 (16.4%) compared to the SSIS-RS (8.2%). Pearson's product-moment correlations revealed that both questionnaires were highly related to each other (r=-0.72, p<0.001) and to measures of adaptive social functioning (both p<0.001). Both questionnaires were significantly related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms, but only very weakly associated with intelligence.Interpretation: The SRS-2 and SSIS-RS capture social dysfunction associated with NF1, suggesting both may be suitable choices for assessing social outcomes in this population in a clinical trial. However, careful thought needs to be given to the nature of the intervention when selecting either as a primary endpoint.What This Paper Adds: The Social Responsiveness Scale, Second Edition yielded a large deficit relative to population norms. The Social Skills Improvement System - Rating Scales yielded a moderate deficit relative to population norms. Both scales were highly correlated, suggesting that they are measuring a unitary construct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To evaluate the preliminary validity and reliability of the myTREEHOUSE Self-Concept Assessment for children with cerebral palsy (CP) aged 8 to 12 years.Method: The myTREEHOUSE Self-Concept Assessment includes 26 items divided into eight domains, assessed across three Performance Perspectives (Personal, Social, and Perceived) and an additional Importance Rating. Face and content validity was assessed by semi-structured interviews with seven expert professionals regarding the assessment construct, content, and clinical utility. Reliability was assessed with 50 children aged 8 to 12 years with CP (29 males, 21 females; mean age 10y 2mo; Gross Motor Function Classification System [GMFCS] level I=35, II=8, III=5, IV=1; mean Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Fourth Edition [WISC-IV]=104), whose data was used to calculate internal consistency of the scale, and a subset of 35 children (20 males, 15 females; mean age 10y 5mo; GMFCS level I=26, II=4, III=4, IV=1; mean WISC-IV=103) who participated in test-retest reliability within 14 to 28 days.Results: Face and content validity was supported by positive expert feedback, with only minor adjustments suggested to clarify the wording of some items. After these amendments, strong internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.84-0.91) and moderate to good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.64-0.75) was found for each component.Interpretation: The myTREEHOUSE Self-Concept Assessment is a valid and reliable assessment of self-concept for children with CP aged 8 to 12 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]