Search

This article presents the findings of a qualitative study that examined the perspectives of adult offspring who participated in a randomized trial during their mother's pregnancy. The study aimed to understand their views on consent, assent, and their priorities regarding health outcomes. The participants generally found the current consent procedures acceptable, highlighting the role of parents as decision-makers in pediatric research. The study emphasizes the importance of giving children a voice and involving them in the research process, as well as providing accurate information to research participants. The participants had diverse reasons for participating in the study and provided suggestions for improvement. The article acknowledges the limitations of the study and suggests ways to promote children's agency in research. [Extracted from the article]

Executive function (EF) encompasses several neurocognitive processes that are important in self-regulation of behavior and the attainment of social and cognitive competencies. While much progress has been made in developing valid measures for adult and adolescent EF, there is a dearth of valid measures for preschool children. Given the steep trajectory of neuropsychological development among this age group and the importance of EF, a valid measure for clinical assessment and research is needed that can capture EF in the everyday context of early childhood. The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function Preschool Version (BRIEF-P) measures parent and teacher observations of children’s everyday self-regulatory behaviors. The BRIEF-P has been validated in a range of normative and non-normative samples, but further validation is needed across cultures. This study aimed to evaluate the cross-cultural validity and reliability of the BRIEF-P when used by New Zealand Māori (n = 131) and European (n = 193) parents of children born with risk factors of neonatal hypoglycemia. Parents of children who participated in the prospective, longitudinal Children with Hypoglycemia and their Later Development (CHYLD) study completed the BRIEF-P when the child was 2 years ±4 weeks and 4.5 years ±8 weeks old. Results showed that the BRIEF-P is a highly reliable and valid instrument. Comparisons between Māori and New Zealand European samples revealed biases, which could be a source of further work to improve the construct validity of this measure, such as the development of norms and item validation for non-European and non-Western samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine the effect of prophylactic dextrose gel for prevention of neonatal hypoglycaemia on neurodevelopment and executive function at 2 years' corrected age.Design: Prospective follow-up of a randomised trial.Setting: New Zealand.Patients: Participants from the pre-hypoglycaemia Prevention with Oral Dextrose (pre-hPOD) trial randomised to one of four dose regimes of buccal 40% dextrose gel or equivolume placebo.Main Outcome Measures: Coprimary outcomes were neurosensory impairment and executive function. Secondary outcomes were components of the primary outcomes, neurology, anthropometry and health measures.Results: We assessed 360 of 401 eligible children (90%) at 2 years' corrected age. There were no differences between dextrose gel dose groups, single or multiple dose groups, or any dextrose and any placebo groups in the risk of neurosensory impairment or low executive function (any dextrose vs any placebo neurosensory impairment: relative risk (RR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.19, p=0.23; low executive function: RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.06, p=0.07). There were also no differences between groups in any secondary outcomes. There was no difference between children who did or did not develop neonatal hypoglycaemia in the risk of neurosensory impairment (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.64, p=0.81) or low executive function (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.59, p=0.43).Conclusion: Prophylactic dextrose gel did not alter neurodevelopment or executive function and had no adverse effects to 2 years' corrected age, but this study was underpowered to detect potentially clinically important effects on neurosensory outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]