Barriers to Receiving Applied Behavior Analysis Services in Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Introduction Applied behavior analysis (ABA) is commonly used to treat children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The objective of this study is to evaluate barriers to ABA treatment in ASD. Methods A voluntary 51-question survey, including demographics, socioeconomic status, parental assertiveness/self-advocacy, and parent perceptions, was provided to caregivers of children aged one to eight years old diagnosed with ASD. The survey consisted of a series of yes/no, five-point Likert scale, multiple-choice, and text field questions. Results A total of 540 surveys were completed. The median time since ASD diagnosis was three to five years ago. Respondents were identified as receiving ABA (r-ABA) vs. not receiving ABA (n-ABA). Respondents were from Florida (60%; r-ABA = 61.7%; n-ABA = 57.0%), Pennsylvania (18%; r-ABA = 21.3%; n-ABA = 12.8%), Delaware (17%; r-ABA = 11.7%; n-ABA = 26.8%), and New Jersey (5%; r-ABA = 5.3%; n-ABA = 3.4%) (p < 0.001). Caregiver belief in ABA treatment, empowerment, and comfort level were greater for r-ABA (4.20 ± 0.72; 3.19 ± 0.93; 4.35 ± 0.72) compared to n-ABA (4.06 ± 0.83; 2.90 ± 1.00; 4.03 ± 0.91), respectively (mean ± SD). Conclusion Barriers to accessing ABA services are a multifactorial issue. Location, income, education of the caregiver, time since ASD diagnosis for the child, as well as caregiver empowerment, belief in treatment, and level of comfort in accessing services most likely contribute to children with ASD not receiving ABA. Empowering parents on their impact on their child's treatment may improve ABA use.

Staff Responses When Parents Hit Children in a Hospital Setting.

OBJECTIVE: Physical punishment of children is a prevalent practice that is condemned by most medical professionals given its link with increased risk of child physical abuse and other adverse child outcomes. This study examined the prevalence of parent-to-child hitting in medical settings and the intervention behaviors of staff who witness it. METHOD: Staff at a children's medical center and a general medical center completed a voluntary, anonymous survey. We used descriptive statistics to examine differences in the experiences of physicians, nurses, and other medical staff. We used logistic regression to predict intervention behaviors among staff who witnessed parent-to-child hitting. RESULTS: Of the hospital staff who completed the survey (N = 2863), we found that 50% of physicians, 24% of nurses, 27% of other direct care staff, and 17% of nondirect care staff witnessed parent-to-child hitting at their medical center in the past year. A majority of physicians, nurses, and other direct care staff reported intervening sometimes or always. Nondirect care staff rarely intervened. Believing staff have the responsibility to intervene, and having comfortable strategies with which to intervene were strongly predictive of intervention behavior. Staff who did not intervene commonly reported that they did not know how to respond. CONCLUSION: Many medical center staff witness parent-to-child hitting. Although some of the staff reported that they intervened when they witnessed this behavior, the findings indicate that staff may need training to identify when and how they should respond.

Medical center staff attitudes about spanking.

Several medical professional organizations, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommend that parents avoid hitting children for disciplinary purposes (e.g., spanking) and that medical professionals advise parents to use alternative methods. The extent to which medical professionals continue to endorse spanking is unknown. This study is the first to examine attitudes about spanking among staff throughout medical settings, including non-direct care staff. A total of 2580 staff at a large general medical center and 733 staff at a children's hospital completed an online survey; respondents were roughly divided between staff who provide direct care to patients (e.g., physicians, nurses) and staff who do not (e.g., receptionists, lab technicians). Less than half (44% and 46%) of staff at each medical center agreed that spanking is harmful to children, although almost all (85% and 88%) acknowledged that spanking can lead to injury. Men, staff who report being religious, and staff who held non-direct care positions at the medical center reported stronger endorsement of spanking and perceived their co-workers to be more strongly in favor of spanking. Non-direct care staff were more supportive of spanking compared with direct care staff on every item assessed. All staff underestimated the extent to which their co-workers held negative views of spanking. If medical centers and other medical settings are to lead the charge in informing the community about the harms of spanking, comprehensive staff education about spanking is indicated.

Education Influences Creativity in Dyslexic and Non-Dyslexic Children and Teenagers.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY HYPOTHESIS: Are dyslexic children and teenagers more creative than non-dyslexic children and teenagers? Whether creativity is higher in dyslexia, and whether this could be related to neurological development specific to the dyslexic disorder, or to compensatory strategies acquired later in life, remains unclear. Here, we suggest an additional role of differential educational approaches taken in each school that could either enhance or suppress an already higher baseline creativity of dyslexic children and teenagers. RESULTS: Creativity in dyslexic and non-dyslexic children and teenagers from different schools in France and in Belgium, as well as in students from different universities, was evaluated with the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Children and teenagers with dyslexia and/or with other similar dysfunctions showed higher creativity scores than non-dyslexic participants. Moreover, the educational approach could further enhance the creative scores in dyslexia, which could be as high as those measured in students from art universities. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that dyslexic children and teenagers can be highly creative. Yet, expression of creativity can be modulated by educational approach, indicating a probable advantage for personal follow-up compared to normalizing education strategies.

Diagnostic agreement when comparing still and video imaging for the medical evaluation of child sexual abuse.

Still photo imaging is often used in medical evaluations of child sexual abuse (CSA) but video imaging may be superior. We aimed to compare still images to videos with respect to diagnostic agreement regarding hymenal deep notches and transections in post-pubertal females. Additionally, we evaluated the role of experience and expertise on agreement. We hypothesized that videos would result in improved diagnostic agreement of multiple evaluators as compared to still photos. This was a prospective quasi-experimental study using imaging modality as the quasi-independent variable. The dependent variable was diagnostic agreement of participants regarding presence/absence of findings indicating penetrative trauma on non-acute post-pubertal genital exams. Participants were medical personnel who regularly perform CSA exams. Diagnostic agreement was evaluated utilizing a retrospective selection of videos and still photos obtained directly from the videos. Videos and still photos were embedded into an on-line survey as sixteen cases. One-hundred sixteen participants completed the study. Participant diagnosis was more likely to agree with study center diagnosis when using video (p<0.01). Use of video resulted in statistically significant changes in diagnosis in four of eight cases. In two cases, the diagnosis of the majority of participants changed from no hymenal transection to transection present. No difference in agreement was found based on experience or expertise. Use of video vs. still images resulted in increased agreement with original examiner and changes in diagnostic impressions in review of CSA exams. Further study is warranted, as video imaging may have significant impacts on diagnosis.