Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev ; 11: CD009115, 2018 11 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30480759

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The reading skills of 16% of children fall below the mean range for their age, and 5% of children have significant and severe reading problems. Phonics training is one of the most common reading treatments used with poor readers, particularly children. OBJECTIVES: To measure the effect of phonics training and explore the impact of various factors, such as training duration and training group size, that might moderate the effect of phonics training on literacy-related skills in English-speaking poor readers. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 12 other databases, and three trials registers up to May 2018. We also searched reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that used randomisation, quasi-randomisation, or minimisation to allocate participants to a phonics intervention group (phonics training only or phonics training plus one other literacy-related skill) or a control group (no training or non-literacy training). Participants were English-speaking poor readers with word reading one standard deviation below the appropriate level for their age (children, adolescents, and adults) or one grade or year below the appropriate level (children only), for no known reason. Participants had no known comorbid developmental disorder, or physical, neurological, or emotional problem. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 studies with 923 participants in this review. Studies took place in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the USA. Six of the 14 included studies were funded by government agencies and one was funded by a university grant. The rest were funded by charitable foundations or trusts. Each study compared phonics training alone, or in conjunction with one other reading-related skill, to either no training (i.e. treatment as usual) or alterative training (e.g. maths). Participants were English-speaking children or adolescents, of low and middle socioeconomic status, whose reading was one year, one grade, or one standard deviation below the level expected for their age or grade for no known reason. Phonics training varied between studies in intensity (up to four hours per week), duration (up to seven months), training group size (individual and small groups), and delivery (human and computer). We measured the effect of phonics training on seven primary outcomes (mixed/regular word reading accuracy, non-word reading accuracy, irregular word reading accuracy, mixed/regular word reading fluency, non-word reading fluency, reading comprehension, and spelling). We judged all studies to be at low risk of bias for most risk criteria, and used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of the evidence.There was low-quality evidence that phonics training may have improved poor readers' accuracy for reading real and novel words that follow the letter-sound rules (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.90; 11 studies, 701 participants), and their accuracy for reading words that did not follow these rules (SMD 0.67, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.07; 10 studies, 682 participants). There was moderate-quality evidence that phonics training probably improved English-speaking poor readers' fluency for reading words that followed the letter-sounds rules (SMD 0.45, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.72; 4 studies, 224 participants), and non-word reading fluency (SMD 0.39, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.68; 3 studies, 188 participants), as well as their accuracy for reading words that did not follow these rules (SMD 0.84, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.39; 4 studies, 294 participants). In addition, there was low-quality evidence that phonics training may have improved poor readers' spelling (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.07 to 1.01; 3 studies, 158 participants), but only slightly improve their reading comprehension (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.62; 5 studies, 343 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Phonics training appears to be effective for improving literacy-related skills, particularly reading fluency of words and non-words, and accuracy of reading irregular words. More studies are needed to improve the precision of outcomes, including word and non-word reading accuracy, reading comprehension, spelling, letter-sound knowledge, and phonological output. More data are also needed to determine if phonics training in English-speaking poor readers is moderated by factors such as training type, intensity, duration, group size, or administrator.


Subject(s)
Comprehension , Dyslexia/rehabilitation , Phonation/physiology , Phonetics , Reading , Adolescent , Adult , Australia , Canada , Child , Female , Humans , Language , Male , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Socioeconomic Factors , United Kingdom , United States
2.
JAMA Pediatr ; 177(10): 1017-1027, 2023 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37639261

ABSTRACT

Importance: Depression during childhood (ie, age <13 years) poses a major health burden. Recent changes in environmental and lifestyle factors may increase children's risk of mental health problems. This has been reported for anxiety disorders, but it is unclear whether this occurs for depressive disorders. Objective: To provide prevalence estimates for the depressive disorders (ie, major depressive disorder [MDD], dysthymia, disruptive mood dysregulation disorder [DMDD], and overall) in children, and whether they have changed over time. Data Sources: The MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched using terms related to depressive disorders, children, and prevalence. This was supplemented by a systematic gray literature search. Study Selection: Studies were required to provide population prevalence estimates of depressive disorder diagnoses (according to an established taxonomy and standardized interviews) for children younger than 13 years, information about participants' year of birth, and be published in English. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction was compliant with the Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. A total of 12 985 nonduplicate records were retrieved, and 154 full texts were reviewed. Data were analyzed from 2004 (the upper limit of a previous review) to May 27, 2023. Multiple proportional random-effects meta-analytic and mixed-effects meta-regression models were fit. Main Outcomes and Measures: Pooled prevalence rates of depressive disorders, prevalence rate differences between males vs females and high-income countries (HICs) vs low-and middle-income countries (LMICs), and moderating effects of time or birth cohort. Results: A total of 41 studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria. Pooled prevalence estimates were obtained for 1.07% (95% CI, 0.62%-1.63%) for depressive disorders overall, 0.71% (95% CI, 0.48%-0.99%) for MDD, 0.30% (95% CI, 0.08%-0.62%) for dysthymia, and 1.60% (95% CI, 0.28%-3.90%) for DMDD. The meta-regressions found no significant evidence of an association with birth cohort, and prevalence rates did not differ significantly between males and females or between HICs and LMICs. There was a low risk of bias overall, except for DMDD, which was hindered by a lack of studies. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, depression in children was uncommon and did not increase substantially between 2004 and 2019. Future epidemiologic studies using standardized interviews will be necessary to determine whether this trend will continue into and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Depressive Disorder, Major , Male , Female , Humans , Child , Child, Preschool , Adolescent , Prevalence , Pandemics , Anxiety Disorders/epidemiology , COVID-19 Testing
3.
PeerJ ; 8: e8772, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32211239

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analyses were to determine if there is a statistically reliable association between poor reading and poor self-concept, and if such an association is moderated by domain of self-concept, type of reading impairment, or contextual factors including age, gender, reading instruction, and school environment. METHODOLOGY: We searched 10 key databases for published and unpublished studies, as well as reference lists of included studies, and studies that cited included studies. We calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals for one primary outcome (average self-concept) and 10 secondary outcomes (10 domains of self-concept). We assessed the data for risk of bias, heterogeneity, sensitivity, reporting bias, and quality of evidence. RESULTS: Thirteen studies with 3,348 participants met our selection criteria. Meta-analyses revealed statistically significant SMDs for average self-concept (-0.57) and five domains of self-concept (reading/writing/spelling: -1.03; academic: -0.67; math: -0.64; behaviour: -0.32; physical appearance: -0.28). The quality of evidence for the primary outcome was moderate, and for secondary outcomes was low, due to lack of data. CONCLUSIONS: These outcomes suggest a probable moderate association between poor reading and average self-concept; a possible strong association between poor reading and reading-writing-spelling self-concept; and possible moderate associations between poor reading and self-concept in the self-concept domains of academia, mathematics, behaviour, and physical appearance.

4.
Clin Psychol Rev ; 67: 45-60, 2019 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30528985

ABSTRACT

Numerous studies have demonstrated an association between learning disabilities and internalising problems such as anxiety and depression. However, our understanding of this association for people with specific types of learning disability - such as poor reading - is poorly understood. Here, we present the first systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that have examined associations between poor reading and internalising problems - including anxiety and depression - in children, adolescents, and adults. Our systematic search identified 34 studies comprising 16,275 participants (N = 2491 poor readers). Our meta-analysis revealed statistically significant differences between poor readers and typical readers on general measures of internalising problems (d = 0.41), as well as specific measures of anxiety (d = 0.41) and depression (d = 0.23). These outcomes suggest that poor readers are at moderate risk for experiencing internalising problems compared to typical readers, which appears to stem from a greater risk for anxiety than depression.


Subject(s)
Anxiety Disorders/physiopathology , Comorbidity , Depressive Disorder/physiopathology , Dyslexia/physiopathology , Psychological Distress , Reading , Adolescent , Adult , Anxiety Disorders/epidemiology , Child , Depressive Disorder/epidemiology , Dyslexia/epidemiology , Humans , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL