Prevalence and risk factors of pre-schoolers' fine motor delay within vulnerable Australian communities.

AIM: This study examined the prevalence and risk factors of fine motor delay in Australian pre-school children from low-income communities. METHODS: Children from the Early Start Baseline Study completed the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (3rd edn.). Age, sex, executive function and family characteristics were assessed and associations with fine motor skills analysed. RESULTS: Data were available for 700 children (Mage 54.0 ± 8.6 months, 53.1% boys) of which 77.4% were typically developing, 12.1% at risk and 10.4% delayed for fine motor skill. Children had higher odds of being delayed if they were male (odds ratio (OR) 3.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.22-4.90) or indigenous (OR 3.31, 95% CI 2.12-5.16) and had lower self-regulatory (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.31-3.58). Higher vocabulary (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.89-0.94), higher family income (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05-0.90) and family education (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08-0.74) were associated with lower odds of delay. CONCLUSION: Almost one in four children from vulnerable communities experience fine motor difficulties, highlighting the importance of early screening and targeting key child and environmental risk factors.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses: Motor Skill Interventions to Improve Fine Motor Development in Children Aged Birth to 6 Years.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to systematically review the evidence of motor skill intervention programs on typically developing children's fine motor development aged birth to 6 years. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched with no date restrictions. Inclusion criteria were any school-, community-, or home-based intervention targeting the development of fine motor skills of children aged birth to 6 years; randomized controlled trials using quasiexperimental, experimental, or single group prepost designs with a minimum sample size of 15 participants per group; and statistical analyses of fine motor skill development at both preintervention and postintervention or addressing the intervention effects on fine motor skill development. Data were extracted on design, participants, intervention components, methodological quality, and efficacy. RESULTS: Twenty-five of the total 31 studies reported positive intervention effects on fine motor skills. The meta-analyses included 19 studies and revealed moderate effect sizes of motor skill programs on fine motor, visual motor, and manual dexterity outcomes. There were substantial differences between intervention settings, facilitators, length, and content with most studies implemented in school settings and facilitated by teachers. CONCLUSION: Fine motor skill development in the early years is an extensive upcoming field of interest for many international researchers. This review study presents evidence on the positive effects of intervention programs that aim to enhance fine motor skills for young children. The findings are promising but need to be interpreted with caution because of the high risk of bias in many of the studies.