The October 5, 2009 issue of Pediatrics included a new report about the prevalence of autism. The study's findings were based on data obtained from a survey given to parents in 2007. The survey asked parents if their child had ever been diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and still had the disorder. Researchers discovered that the prevalence of children with ASD was 1 in 91 children. This number is much higher than previous estimates by the Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network that found the prevalence of ASD to be 1 in 150 children.
How can we make sense of the large increase in numbers? Caution is advised since there has been a great deal of recent publicity about ASD as well as growing public awareness. This may have impacted the identification of more cases of ASD that otherwise would have been missed. Screening of younger children has increased and doctors are much more willing to make a diagnosis of ASD for children at an early ages.
Many education professionals are of the opinion that there has been an increase in the number of children with autism. Sometimes these educators and therapists have a skewed view because they may be in a school district that works very well with families who have children with special needs. Consequently, parents tend to flock to these school districts with good reputations and artificially raise the relative number of children with ASD.
Hopefully, more research studies will be put forth trying to figure out the true nature of our challenge with ASD. It is definitely a situation we would all like to have make more sense!
Click here for the abstract.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
In the News: Music Therapy and Preemies
Jury still out on music's benefits for preemies | Health | Reuters
A group of Canadian doctors at the University of Alberta recently took it upon themselves to do a review of recent research regarding music therapy and premature infants. The article in Reuters caught my eye because of its negative connotation toward using music therapy with preemies. My interest is further heightened because the head of the music therapy department at Florida State University is Dr. Jayne Standley, one of the leading researchers in the field about using music to benefit premature infants.
The doctors in Canada do not seem to have a problem with using music to aid premature babies, but they cite a lack of strong evidence to support some of the positive findings that have been published so far. They specifically said that there is some "preliminary" evidence that specially designed music intervention might be beneficial to these babies in certain circumstances. I think that the researchers were much more positive in their remarks and conclusions than the Reuter's author led us to believe by the headline, "The Jury is Still Out...".
The abstract for the research review in the Archives for Disease in Childhood can be found here. The Canadian doctors discovered that at least two research studies out of the nine they looked at were of good methodological design with large enough sample sizes to warrant merit. One of these studies was the research conducted by Dr. Standley here in Tallahassee using specially designed pacifiers that activate lullaby music for a defined period when a baby sucks. Dr. Standley found that the babies were significantly motivated to suck in order to activate the music and subsequently sucked better at feeding time after the pacifier intervention.
I think that the news article is probably an overall positive development for music therapy. There is obviously great public interest in music therapy and in using music to aid in health. The Canadian researchers seemed to advocate for more research with careful planning and better methodology. There is still much work to be done!
A group of Canadian doctors at the University of Alberta recently took it upon themselves to do a review of recent research regarding music therapy and premature infants. The article in Reuters caught my eye because of its negative connotation toward using music therapy with preemies. My interest is further heightened because the head of the music therapy department at Florida State University is Dr. Jayne Standley, one of the leading researchers in the field about using music to benefit premature infants.
The doctors in Canada do not seem to have a problem with using music to aid premature babies, but they cite a lack of strong evidence to support some of the positive findings that have been published so far. They specifically said that there is some "preliminary" evidence that specially designed music intervention might be beneficial to these babies in certain circumstances. I think that the researchers were much more positive in their remarks and conclusions than the Reuter's author led us to believe by the headline, "The Jury is Still Out...".
The abstract for the research review in the Archives for Disease in Childhood can be found here. The Canadian doctors discovered that at least two research studies out of the nine they looked at were of good methodological design with large enough sample sizes to warrant merit. One of these studies was the research conducted by Dr. Standley here in Tallahassee using specially designed pacifiers that activate lullaby music for a defined period when a baby sucks. Dr. Standley found that the babies were significantly motivated to suck in order to activate the music and subsequently sucked better at feeding time after the pacifier intervention.
I think that the news article is probably an overall positive development for music therapy. There is obviously great public interest in music therapy and in using music to aid in health. The Canadian researchers seemed to advocate for more research with careful planning and better methodology. There is still much work to be done!
Friday, October 9, 2009
Scary: Mill's Canons for Halloween!
The philosophical basis for good research is rooted in the theories of John Stuart Mill. Mill theorized a set of five methods of thinking that apply to cause and effect. His five canons can be a bit confusing at times so I wrote a story to illustrate them. I will provide the definitions and then underline the passages in the story that relate to each of the five canons. Can you decide which ones go together?
1. Mill's Method of Agreement: Proposes that if the circumstances leading up to a given event have in every case only one common factor.
2. Mill's Method of Differences: Proposes that if two or more sets of circumstances are alike in every respect except for one factor and if a given result occurs only when that factor is present, the factor in question probably is the cause of that result.
3. The Joint Method: Combines the above two methods. First, the one factor common to the occurrence is found (Method of Agreement), and second the factor is withdrawn to determine if the phenomenon occurs only when the factor is present.
4. Method of Residues: Assesses causes by the process of elimination. This method proposes that when the specific factors causing certain parts of a given phenomenon are known, the remaining parts of the phenomenon must be caused by the remaining factors.
5. Method of Concomitant Variations: Proposes, in effect, that when two things consistently change or vary together, either the variations in one are caused by the variations in the other, or both are being affected by some common cause.
Hi, my name is Darby. I am almost five years old and this year I get to go to seven Halloween parties! I have picked out two costumes that I like, a princess dress and an angel costume. (Mommy says I can only wear the angel costume on days that I am a good girl.) I am so excited! I looooove Halloween!
I just got home from the first party as a princess and am covered in all kinds of funny looking spots. Mama says that I have a rash. Sounds scary! Maybe I can sneak up on daddy and say, “Boo!” I also brought home some M&Ms and my favorite orange pumpkin candy. They are so yummy!
The second party was really fun too! I went as an angel because I had been such a good girl by helping mommy clean out the pumpkin to make a Jack-o-Lantern. My hands got really sticky! Mommy says that my hands somehow get stickier every time I eat M&Ms too. I ate a lot of M&Ms at the second party, but I was sad that I didn’t get any pumpkin candies. I brought home some more spots all over my face and tummy and Mommy said that the only thing I did on both nights was to eat M&Ms. That must have caused my funny spots!
Mommy told me not to eat any M&Ms at the next two parties, but I secretly ate some at the third party. I also got to eat my favorite pumpkin candies at both parties and was so happy that I didn’t get anything on my princess costume. Sure enough, I had those silly spots at the third party, but not the next day after the fourth party. When mommy found out that I had eaten M&Ms at the third party she declared that the M&Ms must have caused the rash since everything else was the same for both parties.
Mommy was very worried about all these spots so she didn’t let me eat anymore M&Ms at the next three parties. I had to wear my princess costume to all three since I had not been a good girl when I secretly ate the M&Ms. Mommy told me that I should eat the pumpkin candies after only two of the parties and she would then check me for spots.
Luckily, I did not get more of that rash thing after the last three parties. It was itchy! Mommy said Halloween this year was mysterious. She is a smart mommy! She figured out that M&Ms cause me to have spots and that letting me help her with the pumpkin really made my hands sticky! The one thing she couldn’t understand was why I ran to the bathroom as soon as I got in the house after every party. I wonder what mommy would say if I told her that I was able to drink five glasses of punch at every party! She would be so proud of me!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
