HOME / OTHER
JOURNALS INDEX
EXTRACTS FROM THE “OTHER” JOURNALS
RELATING TO CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES —
IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH,
SUBSTANCE ABUSE, EDUCATION, PSYCHOLOGY, SCIENCE ...
April 2007
'Don't ban children from drinking at home'
An alcohol charity’s proposal that parents should be prosecuted for giving their children alcohol in the home has been dismissed as unworkable by the Government.
Alcohol experts and other campaign groups also said that it was counter-productive.
Alcohol Concern recommended that the age limit for drinking in private be raised from 5 to 15 in a report highlighting an increase in the amount drunk by 11 to 13-year-old girls. The group said that a change in legislation would signal to parents the seriousness of underage drinking.
The report, which used NHS figures first published last year, stated that girls in the age group who had drunk in the previous week said that they consumed slightly more than eight units last year. In 2000, that figure stood at below five. Boys who had drunk in the previous week were consuming 50 per cent more than in 2000.
Caroline Flint, the Public Health Minister, insisted that Britain had turned the corner in its fight against underage drinking and ruled out a change in the age limit.
“I don’t think passing a law to ban alcohol for those under 15 would be enforceable or necessarily effective”, she said.
Alcohol Focus Scotland said that it saw nothing wrong with giving children a small amount of alcohol in a responsible manner. Jack Law, Chief Executive, said: “People obviously enjoy drinking but they need to do it in a responsible fashion and show children how to drink responsibly.”
The charity also said that changing the age limit at which children can drink could backfire by giving alcohol a greater allure among youngsters. “It can lead to a kind of illusion about alcohol – that it’s some kind of a forbidden subject,” Mr Law said. “We know that this can be attractive. The best way of dealing with this kind of issue is to make sure parents are well-informed.”
Anne Fox, an anthropologist who has advised the Government on drinking culture, said that it had been proven that children who had grown up with alcohol as a part of normal life were less likely to develop problems. She told The Times: “To prosecute parents is a very, very ill-advised move. The only way children are going to learn sensible drinking is in the home. Better education is needed for parents in terms of what is a safe amount.”
Alcohol Concern’s call for a change in the drinking age limit came as Asda, the supermarket, announced that customers who look younger than 25 should expect to be asked for identification to prove their age if buying alcohol.
The Times
April 28, 2007
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article1717253.ece
___
Docs: avoid giving young children medicines
The urge to help a stuffed-up, feverish child feel better and sleep is almost overwhelming, and there is a whole drug industry out there that knows it.
Just walk down the cold-remedy aisle in any drugstore and you'll see dozens of products for children that promise to fix every combination of cough, sniffle and sneeze.
Resist.
Ignore the cute pictures of babies in diapers and the endearing little cartoon characters. There is increasing evidence that these products don't work well, and in very small children the drugs can be harmful.
The Food and Drug Administration last month said it is launching a broad review of the safety of cough and cold remedies marketed for children. The FDA was pressured to do so by a group of pediatricians and public health advocates who said that the drugs have never been studied in children, and are largely ineffective.
A recent study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that between 2004 and 2005, 1,519 kids under age 2 nationwide were rushed to emergency rooms after taking over-the-counter medications. Three babies died.
"I'm against using these products in kids less than 2 years old," said Don Uden, a professor in the College of Pharmacy at the University of Minnesota. "And I never use them myself."
In fact, the pediatricians who petitioned the FDA urged the agency to order manufacturers to stop marketing the drugs for children under age 6. The labels on most of the drugs give recommended dosages for children by age group, but say parents should first check with doctors before giving them to children age 2 or younger.
Kids might get cold medications a lot more often than adults because they get an estimated six to 10 colds per year, far more than adults. One study found that in a single 30-day period, a third of all children in the United States were given over-the-counter cold medications.
But increasingly doctors and national medical organizations are saying don't give them to children at all. Last year the American College of Chest Physicians advised parents not to give cough and cold medications to children, and the American Academy of Pediatrics tells parents to stay away from them as well.
Doctors say that the drugs are rarely dangerous, even when kids get too much. But just as adults can have bad reactions to the drugs, so can kids. Pseudoephedrine and other decongestants can make kids jumpy and anxious, and antihistamines can make them dehydrated and sleepy, for example.
The Consumer Healthcare Products Association, the trade organization that represents the drug makers, says the medications are safe and effective when used according to the labels. They have been on the market for decades, and are used by millions of people, the group said in a public statement in early March.
At issue are combination drugs that include a variety of ingredients: pain killers, decongestants, antihistamines, cough suppressants and expectorants. The problem, say critics, is that the doses for kids are based on those for adults, but are adjusted by average weight in the age group. At best, say doctors, the doses are educated guesses.
And like hundreds of other drugs that came on the market before 1970, these have never been tested in kids for safety or effectiveness. The little research that has been done shows that generally they are not much better than placebos in treating symptoms.
And while they are generally safe when given in the right doses, it's easy to overdose. Sometimes kids get two different brands that claim to treat different symptoms, but they often contain the same ingredients. As a result, kids get too much.
Josephine Marcotty
26 April 2007
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=COLDREMEDIES-04-26-07
___
Still too much TV violence
An FCC study finds that children are still being exposed to gore. Federal regulators have concluded that Hollywood's efforts to shield children from violent TV shows have failed and that Congress should authorize government action.
The Federal Communications Commission report, released Wednesday, promises to kick off a fierce fight on Capitol Hill and the presidential campaign trail, one that, like the ongoing battle over indecency, could well end up in the Supreme Court.
Citing university and government studies, the FCC concluded that violent programming was harmful to children and said Congress could craft limits that wouldn't violate 1st Amendment rights. Specifically, the report said, lawmakers have the authority to give the FCC the power to restrict when broadcasters can air excessive gore and mayhem.
What's more, the FCC determined, Congress can require cable and satellite providers to allow viewers to purchase only the channels they want, giving them the chance to opt out of certain kinds of programming.
"Clearly, steps should be taken to protect children from excessively violent programming. Some might say action is long overdue," said FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, who has pushed cable and satellite companies to offer "a la carte" pricing. "While the Constitution protects the right to speak, it certainly doesn't protect a right to get paid for that speech."
The FCC didn't define violence in its report.
Broadcasters, the agency said, could short-circuit legislative action by voluntarily adopting a violence-free "family hour" at the beginning of prime time. Pay-TV services could also forestall action by reimbursing viewers for channels they don't want to receive or allowing them to buy channels in smaller bundles.
Without voluntary action, Martin said Congress could require those changes. He said he expected a legal challenge should Congress act on the recommendations, "but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't still try to do something."
The FCC study was requested in 2004 by a bipartisan group of 39 House members and will set the stage for legislation. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) said he planned to introduce a bill in the next few weeks.
"Violent television content is reaching epidemic proportions," he said. He called protecting children from extremely violent shows "one of the most critical communication issues of our time."
Broadcasters and pay-TV companies adamantly oppose new regulations. The major broadcast networks have chafed at the FCC's aggressive indecency enforcement under Martin, suing the agency last year. A court is expected to rule soon.
NBC Universal said in a statement Wednesday that "regulating 'violent content' without clear, objective, and consistent standards" would "threaten the wide range of programming enjoyed by American audiences."
Two-thirds of U.S. households have no children under 18, the network pointed out.
The National Assn. of Broadcasters and the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. criticized the FCC report, saying the V-chip and other parental controls were better solutions. The TV industry is in the midst of a $300-million campaign to educate parents about blocking technologies and the FCC should give it time to work, said Dennis Wharton, NAB's executive vice president.
The American Civil Liberties Union also weighed in, blasting the FCC's recommendations as "political pandering."
"Monitoring what your children watch on television is a parent's responsibility — not Uncle Sam's," the ACLU said.
Although the report was approved 5 to 0, two commissioners criticized some of its findings. Robert M. McDowell, a Republican, said it "fails to illuminate a path for Congress" to avoid "legal pitfalls." Jonathan S. Adelstein, a Democrat, complained about the failure to define violence: "After three years, it's pretty disappointing this is all we came up with."
The FCC said a definition was possible but would have to be "narrowly tailored." Martin dismissed criticism that a workable definition would be impossible, noting that the TV ratings have specific violence categories.
Jim Puzzanghera
April 26 2007
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-violence26apr26,0,4789880.story?coll=la-home-business
___
Puberty, risky behaviors go hand-in-hand
Taking risks may be an integral part of being a teenager, an expert on
child development says.
While the part of the brain that seeks social and emotional rewards
kicks into overdrive during adolescence, Dr. Laurence Steinberg of
Temple University in Philadelphia explains in a new analysis of research
on brain and behavior, the network responsible for impulse control
doesn't reach maturity until adulthood.
This means efforts to educate kids about the consequences of their risky
behavior -- from driver's education to abstinence-only sex ed -- are
unlikely to be effective, says Steinberg told Reuters Health.
The best approach to helping teens stay safe probably involves
controlling opportunities for them to get in trouble by enforcing laws
restricting the sale of alcohol to minors, expanding access to mental
health care and birth control, raising the driving age, and good old
fashioned parenting, he reports in the latest issue of Current
Directions in Psychological Science.
"Kids during adolescence still need a lot of parental control and
monitoring," Steinberg continued. The teen years, he adds, are not the
time for parents to "check out."
Ignorance or a sense of invulnerability doesn't explain why teens take
risks, he notes, because studies have shown that they are just as good
as adults in understanding risks and their vulnerability to them. But
during puberty, Steinberg adds, a system he calls the "socioemotional
network" that pushes kids to seek novelty and take risks becomes
activated, especially in the company of peers.
While the biological reasons behind this shift are not clear, major
changes in the dopamine system are known to occur in adolescence. In
evolutionary terms, these changes likely encouraged newly sexually
mature humans to have sex, thus helping to perpetuate the species, he
adds. "There's a reason why you do want people to be kind of oriented
toward reward and novelty during adolescence. You just don't want them
to satisfy those urges in unhealthy ways."
Meanwhile, the cognitive control system responsible for regulating
emotions, controlling impulses, delaying gratification and withstanding
peer pressure doesn't fully mature until young people reach their 20s,
Steinberg adds. "Because kids may not be capable of regulating
themselves, they need the help and support of adults to do some of
this," he explains.
Trying to make teens "wiser, less impulsive, or less shortsighted" is
unlikely to stop them from taking risks. "Some things just take time to
develop, and, like it or not, mature judgment is probably one of them."
SOURCE: Current Directions in Psychological Science, April 2007
Anne Harding
23 April 2007
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2007-04-23T194602Z_01_COL371079_RTRUKOC_0_US-RISKY-BEHAVIORS.xml
___
Fourteen and fifteen year olds in Northern Ireland are
using cannabis daily
Fourteen and fifteen year olds in Northern Ireland are using cannabis
daily a study has found.
Research from Queen's University Belfast has found that one in ten
school children who had reported using cannabis at least once had now
become daily users.
Dr Patrick McCrystal, Senior Research Fellow, said: "Whilst the numbers
in our study who told us they were using cannabis each day may seem
small, these young people are telling us that by the age of 15 they have
moved beyond experimental or recreational use of an illegal drug to more
sustained usage."
Those reporting high levels of cannabis use were also more likely to
smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol regularly as well as use other
illegal drugs. Approximately one in six of these users also reported
abusing solvents on a weekly basis and nearly one third used ecstasy
each week. The frequent cannabis users were responsible for almost all
use of 'hard' drugs like cocaine.
The Youth Development Study (YDS), being carried out by Queen's
Institute of Child Care Research, is a longitudinal study of adolescent
drug use. Some 4,000 teenagers covering 43 schools in Belfast, Ballymena
and Downpatrick have taken part each year since they entered secondary
education making it one of the largest schools-based surveys of its
kind.
The research found that 70 percent of the frequent users were male.
Nearly two-thirds of all the users belonged to the lowest socio-economic
groups, were more likely to live within a disrupted family with just one
parent, have poor levels of communication with parents or guardians, and
had low levels of motivation to do well at school.
Dr McCrystal continued: "The findings tell us that the school children
who use cannabis each day are placing themselves at an increased risk to
drug related social and health problems now and in the future. These
young people appear to have moved beyond what we consider traditional
teenage lifestyles to one that includes regular use of illegal drugs as
well as frequent tobacco and alcohol consumption. They are more likely
to spend their evenings away from the family home, have poor levels of
communication with their families, and be disaffected with school."
The study further indicates high levels of delinquency and antisocial
behaviour by daily users which may have become part of their 'lifestyle
activities'. Of these teenagers, a quarter reported being in trouble
with the police on more than 10 occasions and nearly one-fifth had been
summoned to court during the twelve month period prior to the survey.
Dr McCrystal said: "The lifestyle activities of the high level users may
provide valuable insights for education and prevention strategies for
the future. The opportunity should be taken now to identify as many of
these young people as possible and as early as we can. Our research
provides examples of the type of information that is now needed to do
this and to develop support strategies to meet their needs.
"Also, as we continue with our research into the lifestyles of these
young people we may be able to determine more specifically the
activities associated with their drug use, and in doing so also more
fully understand how drug use is shaped by lifestyle, and conversely,
how drug use reshapes lifestyle."
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=23882
___
Doctors call for
smoking clampdown
Action must be taken to fight young smokers, the BMA says.
The government must introduce new legislation to
protect young people from the dangers of tobacco, a new report from the
British Medical Association (BMA) claims.
Breaking the Cycle of Children's Exposure to Tobacco Smoke, published
today, calls for a ban on ten-pack cigarettes, the abolition of tobacco
vending machines and for the minimum age for buying cigarettes to be
raised to 18.
It also demands that government, healthcare professionals and lawmakers
act to intensify public information campaigns about the negative health
effects of smoking on young children.
Tobacco licensing must be brought into line with regulations governing
alcohol licensing while taxation should slowly be increased above
inflation to decrease the affordability of cigarettes, the report
recommends.
"Young smokers will become tomorrow’s parents who smoke and they will
continue the cycle of smoking-related ill-health and premature death in
families," the BMA's head of science and ethics, Vivienne Nathanson,
said today.
"One of the best ways to prevent children starting to smoke is to help
their parents quit. Adequately resourced and targeted smoking cessation
services are key to this," she added.
The Observer newspaper yesterday quoted a senior Department of Health
spokesperson as responding positively to the report, saying: "We want to
maintain the momentum brought about by the ban on smoking in public
places in England coming into force on July 1st and initiatives like
this we would want to look at."
British Medical Association
23 April 2007
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/doctors-call-smoking-clampdown-$1078609.htm
___
GENEVA
Children dying in developing world from lack of AIDS treatment
Hundreds of thousands of children are dying of AIDS in developing countries because they do not have access to treatments readily available elsewhere, UN health agencies said Tuesday.
While pediatric HIV has been almost eliminated in high-income countries, where mother-to-child transmission rates have fallen to below 2 percent, it remains "particularly aggressive" in poorer regions, according to a report from the World Health Organization; Unaids, the UN agency dealing with AIDS; and Unicef, the UN children's agency.
Only 11 percent of HIV-positive pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries are given drugs to prevent passing the immunity-destroying disease to their children during childbirth, and many infants born with HIV are undiagnosed and therefore untreated, the report found.
It said that 380,000 children died of AIDS-related causes last year, mainly from preventable infections.
"Children continue to be the missing face of the AIDS pandemic," Ann Veneman, the head of Unicef, said in a statement.
The agencies' report, which outlined advances in access to HIV treatment, said the number of people getting HIV therapy in poorer countries rose 54 percent last year to 2 million, though another 5 million still lack access to the life-saving drugs.
Just 15 percent of the 780,000 children in need of HIV treatment had access to it by the end of 2006, and only 4 percent were given the antibiotic cotrimoxazole, which the WHO recommends for children with HIV and those born to HIV-infected mothers when early diagnosis is impossible.
Difficulties in gaining access to treatment were found to be most acute in sub-Saharan Africa, home to 25 million AIDS sufferers and 85 percent of all HIV-infected pregnant women.
17 April 2007
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/17/news/aids.php
___
Study: Benefits trump risks for children taking antidepressants
Authors of a new comprehensive analysis of antidepressants for children and teenagers say the benefits of treatment trump the small risk of increasing some patients' chances of having suicidal thoughts and behaviors. The risk they found is lower than the one the Food and Drug Administration identified in 2004, the year the agency warned the public about the drugs' risks in children. After the warning, U.S. youth suicides increased and some mental health experts said reluctance to try antidepressants might be to blame.
The new analysis includes data from seven studies that were not part of the previous FDA analysis, including two large pediatric depression trials that were unavailable three years ago. Researchers analyzed data on 5,310 children and teenagers from 27 studies. They found that for every 100 kids treated with antidepressants, about one additional child experienced worsening suicidal feelings above what would have happened without drug treatment. In contrast, the FDA analysis found an added risk affecting about two in 100 patients.
There were no suicides in any of the studies. The antidepressants included Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Lexapro, Effexor, Serzone and Remeron.
“The medications are safe and effective and should be considered as an important part of treatment,” said study co-author Dr. David Brent of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. “The benefits seem favorable compared to the small risk of suicidal thoughts and behavior.”
Antidepressants worked best when used to treat anxiety, the analysis found. They worked moderately well treating obsessive-compulsive disorders. They worked less well, but were still effective in treating depression.
Adolescents responded better than children to treatment for depression and anxiety, the researchers found. They also found that only Prozac worked better than dummy pills in depressed children younger than 12.
In the studies involving depression, 61 percent of patients improved while on antidepressants. But 50 percent of depressed patients taking dummy pills also improved.
Among young patients with obsessive-compulsive disorders, 52 percent improved on antidepressants, compared to 32 percent who improved on dummy pills.
And in the studies of anxiety disorders, 69 percent improved on antidepressants and 39 percent improved on dummy pills.
Effectiveness of the drugs was measured in the studies using widely accepted rating scales. The analysis appears in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association.
Dr. John March, chief of child and adolescent psychiatry at Duke University Medical Center, welcomed the study as “the most comprehensive analysis of the data yet put together.” He said the suicidal behavior risk, although lower than found by the FDA, demands that doctors and families watch for warning signs.
“You can't treat kids with these drugs without taking this information into account,” said March, who was not involved in the study, but does similar research. “You can't say, 'Take these and call me in six weeks.' You have to monitor carefully the benefits and adverse events.”
The study didn't measure the effects of talk therapy, March pointed out. He said cognitive behavioral therapy used with antidepressants can lower suicide risk and speed up recovery for depressed youth.
The study was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
Carla K. Johnson
April 17, 2007
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/health/20070417-1301-antidepressantschildren.html
___
Abstinence education doesn't deter youths
More than 2,000 children and young teens who
participated in federally funded abstinence-education programs were no
more likely to abstain from sex than schoolmates who didn't receive the
information, according to a government report released yesterday.
In all four test sites, youths in the abstinence-education program and
youths who received regular school services were not different in their
sexual behavior four to six years later.
Fifty-five percent had been abstinent in the past year and 49 percent
were still virgins, said the final report on the Title V
abstinence-education grant program, which was conducted by researchers
with Mathematica Policy Research Inc. and issued by Department of Health
and Human Services' Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation.
The program youth and control group youth also didn't differ on the
average age -- 14 years, 9 months -- at which they had sex for the first
time, or in the number of sexual partners they had once they became
sexually active -- about 16 percent had one partner, 11 percent had two
partners and 25 percent had three or more sex partners.
The research offers important lessons for future abstinence programming,
said Harry Wilson, commissioner of the Family and Youth Services Bureau
at HHS Administration for Children and Families. "This report confirms
what those of us who have experience working with youth already know:
Interventions are not like vaccines; you can't expect a little dose in
middle school to be protective through high school if abstinence
education ends before the most important years."
The long-awaited evaluation touched off a flurry of reactions.
"The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy has long cautioned that
the jury is out on the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs," said
Sarah Brown, executive director of the campaign. "The jury has now
returned with the verdict on the effectiveness of four carefully
selected, well-evaluated abstinence-only programs and the news is not
good."
William Smith, of the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the
United States, said the report "should serve as the final verdict on the
failure of the abstinence-only industry in this country."
"After 10 years and $1.5 billion in public funds, these failed
abstinence-only-until-marriage programs will go down as an ideological
boondoggle of historic proportions," said James Wagoner, president of
Advocates for Youth, a group that promotes responsible sexual behavior.
Abstinence supporters, however, said the report was not a sweeping
indictment of abstinence programs.
"Regrettably, the study shows that the four programs were not successful
in reducing teen sexual activity," Heritage Foundation analyst Robert
Rector said. "Fortunately, there are 15 other studies ... showing that
abstinence programs are effective in reducing youth sexual activity."
A federal conference in March in Baltimore highlighted several studies
that show abstinence education delays sex and even encourages sexually
active youth to become celibate again, said Valerie Huber, executive
director of the new National Abstinence Education Association.
Abstinence education should be an issue on Capitol Hill soon: The
$50-million-a-year Title V abstinence-grant program, which was created
in the 1996 welfare reform law, expires June 30 unless it is renewed.
Sex education advocates also are expecting House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman, California
Democrat, to hold hearings on abstinence programs, which currently
receive about $176 million a year in federal funds.
The Mathematica study involved 2,057 children, including 1,209 who
participated in "Families United to Prevent Teen Pregnancy" in
Milwaukee; "ReCapturing the Vision" in Miami; "Teens in Control" in
Clarksdale, Miss.; and "My Choice, My Future" in Powhatan, Va. Students
were typically 11 or 12 years old when they started the programs;
follow-up surveys were conducted five years later.
By Cheryl Wetzstein
April 14, 2007
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070414-122734-5556r.htm
___
"Not enough youth prescribed Ritalin for ADHD": study
Ritalin may not be prescribed enough to Atlantic Canadian youth who may need it, a new study from a researcher at Dalhousie University suggests.
The study by Dr. Christiane Poulin, an associate professor of community health and epidemiology, contradicts the widely held belief that Ritalin is being overprescribed to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and teenagers. Her study was made available in March in the online version of the journal Addiction. The research was funded by the Canadian Institute of Health Research and the Canadian Population Health Initiative.
Using data from a 2002 survey of 12,990 adolescents in Atlantic Canada, the study found that six per cent of respondents screened positive for ADHD, but only two per cent of them had been prescribed Ritalin or amphetamines. "There is a fairly large percentage of teenagers with ADHD who are not known to the health care system," she added. "Contrary to popular opinion, which is that children and teenagers are largely being prescribed medications for attention deficit disorder, in fact … we found that it’s only about nine per cent of our teenagers who are positive for ADHD are on prescribed Ritalin. That is, in fact, a low rate of utilization."
Poulin's study also found many children who are using Ritalin without a prescription — usually buying it or obtaining it from friends — are at high risk of having ADHD themselves and are, in effect, self-medicating.
Governments and doctors should ask why the health care system has not identified and helped those children and youth, she suggested.
The random sample of students filled out anonymous confidential paper questionnaires for the survey.
New Brunswick Health Minister Michael Murphy said the information in Poulin's study will help youth in his province. "The more studies there are like this, then the more able we are to treat who needs to be treated," he said.
One of Poulin's previous studies, published in 2001 in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, found that nearly 15 per cent of teenagers gave away at least some of the Ritalin or other stimulant pills that were prescribed to them. About seven per cent of those youth sold their pills.
Source: Addiction
10 April 2007
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2007/04/10/nb-ritalin.html
___
Calling child's name a simple test for autism
A child's failure to respond to his or her name at one year of age may be an early warning sign of autism or other developmental problems. The finding is significant because "earlier identification of autism offers the possibility of early intervention, which holds promise for improving outcomes", said the report from the University of California Davis in Sacramento. "This has motivated a growing body of research that aims to ascertain the earliest reliable indicators of autism."
The study, published in the Archives of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, involved 101 children age 1 whose older siblings had autism, and who were therefore considered at risk. They were compared with 46 infants of the same age who were not believed to be at high risk of developing the disorder.
With each child seated at a table with a small toy, a researcher walked behind and called his or her name in a clear voice. If the child did not respond after three seconds, the name was called again no more than twice.
All of the infants in the low-risk group responded to their name on the first or second call, the study said, compared with 86 per cent in the at-risk group.
For up to two years afterward the researchers followed 46 infants from the at-risk group and 25 from the low-risk group. They found that three-quarters of those who did not respond to their name at 12 months had developmental problems at 2.
Of the children later diagnosed with autism, half had failed the test at one year, and of those who were identified as having any type of developmental delay, 39 per cent had failed the name recognition test.
The test will not find all children at risk for developmental problems, however it is easy to administer, takes few resources and doctors might want to include it in child check-ups at age 1, the study said.
In a related article in the same journal, researchers at Abt Associates, Lexington, Massachusetts, and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, said an analysis of medical literature found that each person with autism costs the United States about US$3.2 million ($4.5 million) over their lifetime.
The figure includes lost productivity for children and their parents, care for victims as adults, prescription medications, special education and behavioural therapies.
Archives of Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine
9 April 2007
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/topic/story.cfm?c_id=294&objectid=10433194
___
Older parents more likely to have an autistic child
Advanced maternal age and paternal age are both risk factors for having a child with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a large study indicates. However, the researchers emphasize that risk of having a child with an ASD is very small, even for the oldest parents.
"A number of studies have looked at the impact of maternal age on autism, but the results have been inconsistent. Paternal age has been much less studied," lead author Dr. Lisa A. Croen told Reuters Health. "Our findings support a link between advanced (parental) age and autism, although the effect on risk is small."
According to Croen, from Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, the new findings do not make a strong argument for or against having children at a younger age.
The study, which is reported in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, involved all singleton children who were born at Kaiser Permanente between 1995 and 1999. Of the children studied, 593 were later diagnosed with an ASD and 132,251 were not.
With each 10-year increase in the mothers' age the ASD risk rose by 31 percent, while for 10-year increments in the fathers' age it went up by 28 percent.
Compared with parents between 25 and 29 years of age, mothers and fathers who were 40 years of age or older were 27 percent and 52 percent more likely, respectively, to have a child with an ASD.
The link between advanced parental age and ASD risk was stronger for girls than for boys, but the association was not statistically significant.
Croen said that she was not surprised by the findings given previous reports supporting a link and the fact that a number of childhood diseases are associated with advanced parental age. She added that her group has now explored this topic further using data from the entire state of California and plans to submit these findings shortly for publication.
SOURCE: Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, April 2007.
Anthony J. Brown
3 April 2007
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=3004685
___
You can lead your child to the table, but you can't make him eat
Here's a rule for your consideration: Don't get between your child and his food. Your child controls what she swallows. If you're between your child and his food, what your child eats becomes embedded in your relationship.
If you're willing to adhere to this rule, then you believe that children, given appropriate choices of nutritious foods, will eat what they need. The American Academy of Pediatrics makes this claim in the book "Guide to Your Child's Nutrition: Making Peace at the Table and Building Healthy Eating Habits for Life," William H. Dietz and Loraine Stern, editors (1999, Villard Books). This approach does not claim, however, that children will eat a perfectly balanced meal each breakfast, lunch and dinner, but that over a three-to-five-day period, they will eat what their bodies require.
A parent's role is not to entice, persuade or insist that their children eat certain foods or amounts of foods. Mom and Dad's role is to set food on the table — some of which they know their kids will eat, and some of which they hope they'll learn to enjoy — and allow the children to make a meal with the food provided.
It's the parents' responsibility to notice if their children are healthy, sleeping, growing and energetic. If a child is not, then it's time to talk to your child's doctor and possibly consult a nutritionist. If a child isn't eating adequately, understand that it won't help the situation by saying something like, "Eat this for Daddy," or "Eat this if you want a bowl of ice cream."
When parents consider following this rule, many questions arise:
"What if my child doesn't eat his dinner and is hungry before bed?" There are several things a parent can do in this situation:
- Before your child leaves the table, remind him, "I can't force you to eat your dinner, but remember there will be no food until breakfast."
- Cover your child's plate with plastic wrap, put it in the refrigerator and offer it as a snack before bed.
- Offer crackers and cheese, yogurt or cereal before bed.
"If my child has not eaten his dinner, can he have dessert?" No. It's not a good idea for a child to have a bowl of ice cream, cookies or chocolate cake if he hasn't eaten dinner. But it's not nice for everyone else to indulge in these treats in front of the child, either. If dessert becomes a problem, it's best to eliminate it from the family menu.
"Do you say nothing during the meal about the food on the table?" Go ahead and make suggestions, and encourage your child to take one bite of a food. If your child declines a certain food, respect his right to do so. Also make the statement that although he didn't care for the taste of the food today, someday he might enjoy it. Also talk up the foods you like. Remember, you're a powerful role model. Your children are watching you. If you've just made a delicious dish and find it tasty, talk of its savory flavors.
"Do you turn food control completely over to your children?" No. But it's important to realize what you do and do not control. You control the food that comes into the house, the food you put on the table and the food that is available to your children, but you don't control what they swallow.
At mealtime, resist closely monitoring your child's food consumption. Instead, focus on pleasant conversation. Usually when parents do so, everyone eats what he or she needs.
Teach children to decline food politely. Saying "yuck" is not OK; saying "No thank you, I don't care for asparagus" is. Also, in small portions, teach about nutrition with the goal that in time your children will understand what constitutes healthful eating.
Jan Faull
31 March 2007
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003644902_faull31.html
___
Top
__