Search

This retrospective study analyzed the quality of 1069 referral letters written by school principals to our learning disability clinic. Utilizing a self-devised checklist having four domains (with 26 items), the audit revealed that in only nine (34.6%) items, the necessary information was available in >90% of referral letters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the economic burden of slow learners (students with "borderline intellectual functioning") by estimating its direct, indirect, and intangible costs. The secondary objective was to assess the impact of variables on the economic burden. Settings and Design: Cross-sectional, single-arm descriptive study. Setting: Learning disability clinic in a public medical college in Mumbai. Materials and Methods: The study cases (age ≥5 - 18 years) were recruited by nonprobability sampling. A structured questionnaire was used to interview the parent to collect data related to direct and indirect costs. Intangible costs data were collected by documenting the willingness-to-pay value using the contingent valuation technique. Statistical Analysis Used: A quantile regression model was used to assess the impact of predictor variables on the costs. Results: The direct, indirect, and intangible costs of slow learners were INR 6,065,915, 10,298,613, and 145,172,800, respectively. Indirect costs comprised 62.9% of the total costs. Expenditure on tuitions, medications, and remedial education comprised 57.38%, 16.18%, and 10.30% of the direct costs, respectively. The average annual total costs of slow learners were INR 3,544,880. The average annual learning disability clinic costs were INR 2,250,194. The average annual total costs per student were INR 57,951. Longer duration of poor school performance was predictive of higher direct and total costs. Conclusion: The economic burden of slow learners is enormous (intangible > indirect > direct costs). Tuitions are the most costly component of direct costs. Parental loss of earnings is the most costly component of indirect costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The primary objective of the present study was to evaluate the economic burden of specific learning disability (SpLD) by estimating its direct, indirect, and intangible costs. A secondary objective was to assess the impact of variables on the economic burden. Settings and Design: Cross-sectional single-arm descriptive study. Setting: Learning disability clinic in a public medical college in Mumbai. Subjects and Methods: The study cases (aged ≥8 years) were recruited by non-probability sampling. A structured questionnaire was used to interview the parent/guardian to collect data related to direct and indirect costs. Intangible costs data were collected by documenting the willingness-to-pay value using the contingent valuation technique. Statistical Analysis Used: A quantile regression model was used to assess the impact of predictor variables on the costs. Results: The direct, indirect, and intangible costs due to SpLD were Indian Rupees (INR) 5,936,053, 29,261,220, and 42,295,000, respectively. Indirect costs comprised 83.1% of the total costs. Expenditure on tuitions and remedial education comprised 61.61% and 64.39% of the indirect and direct costs, respectively. The average annual learning disability clinic costs were INR 2,169,888. The average annual total costs per student were INR 90,773. Longer duration of poor school performance was predictive of higher direct, indirect, and total costs; and higher socioeconomic status was predictive of lower intangible costs. Conclusion: SpLD is a cost-intensive disability (intangible > indirect > direct costs). Tuitions, which are not the therapy for SpLD, are the most costly component of indirect costs. Remedial education is the most costly component of direct costs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: School students with specific learning disabilities (SpLDs) experience chronic academic underachievement and resultant stress. The present study aimed to determine if school students with newly diagnosed SpLD were more likely to have anxiety than their regular peers. Materials and Methods: The study cases (aged 8-15 years) were recruited from our institute’s learning disability clinic. The matched controls were recruited from four schools in Mumbai, Maharashtra, India. Anxiety was measured using the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale (SCAS)-child self-report version questionnaire. Median SCAS scores and the proportion of students with an SCAS score in the “clinical anxiety” range were compared between the groups. Results: SCAS scores were significantly higher in 8-11-year-old learning-disabled male and female students (P < 0.0001 for both groups) and 12-15-year-old female students (P = 0.004), as compared with matched controls. A significantly higher number of learning-disabled students were found to have “clinical anxiety” [24.64% vs 4.35%, crude odds ratio (OR) = 7.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.91-17.78, P = 0.0001], as compared with the controls regardless of gender, age group, presence of comorbid attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or associated medical conditions. A significantly higher proportion of 8-11-year-old learning-disabled students, especially males, were found to have “clinical anxiety” as compared with 12-15-year-old learning-disabled students (crude OR = 4.38, 95% CI 1.94-9.92, P = 0.0004). Gender, presence of comorbid ADHD or associated medical conditions, and type of school attended or curriculum did not impact the prevalence of “clinical anxiety” in learning-disabled students. Interpretation and Conclusions: Students with newly diagnosed SpLD have greater odds of being “clinically anxious” relative to their regular peers. We recommend screening for anxiety in children with SpLD immediately after diagnosis so that their optimum rehabilitation can be facilitated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]