Developmental outcomes of small infants at a high-risk clinic: A short-term longitudinal study.
Tayla-Ann Macaskill, Maria Du Toit, Renata Eccles and 2 others
PMID 40922621WHAT IT FOUND
At 6 months corrected age, 8 of 28 small infants had a screening referral for developmental concerns, especially communication and motor skills.
At 12 months, all 17 who attended scored above the developmental test average. This does not prove catch-up.
Key findings
01Eight of 28 infants had a screening referral for developmental concerns, with communication and motor domains raising concern.
02At the second visit, 4 of 17 infants had a screening referral, while all participants who attended had Vineland-3 scores above the mean.
03Four infants failed hearing screening twice and were referred; two had no developmental concerns.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only 28 infants were assessed at the first visit and 17 at the second, so the study is too small to show how common delays are in all small infants. Eleven of 28 infants defaulted before the second visit, and the paper does not show whether those lost differed from those retained. All infants received usual high-risk clinic care, including skin-to-skin care, regular follow-up and referrals, so the contribution of any single part of care cannot be separated. The follow-up stopped at 12 months corrected age, so it does not show later development or long-term outcomes. The screening and diagnostic tools disagreed, especially for communication and self-help/daily living, so a single tool may miss concerns. The study excluded infants with syndromes or congenital abnormalities, so it does not address delays from those conditions.
Declared interests
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship or publication of this article.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the second-visit scores above the test average as proof that the clinic caused catch-up. All infants were already receiving skin-to-skin care, regular high-risk clinic follow-up and referrals, 11 of 28 were lost before the second visit, and the study observed outcomes under usual care rather than testing a treatment.