Executive and attentional functioning interventions in preterm children: a systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review, performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, seeks to summarize the interventions that have been developed in order to improve executive functioning and attention in children born prematurely. METHODS: The PICOS framework helped guide the structure and relevant terms selected for the study. Electronic systematic searches of the databases PubMed (NLM), Ovid Medline, Ovid All EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, and Ovid PsycINFO were completed in March 2022. This review focuses on interventions that target attention and executive functioning in prematurely born children between birth and 12 years old, with outcome measures assessed between 3 and 12 years old, even if the age range in the study can exceed our own parameters. Data extraction included sample characteristics, country of recruitment, type of intervention, description of the intervention group and control group, outcome measures, and overall results. An assessment of the quality of methodology of studies was performed through an adaptation of the Downs and Black checklist for both randomized and nonrandomized studies in healthcare interventions. An assessment of the risk of bias was also presented using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials 2.0. RESULTS: A total of 517 premature children received an intervention at some point between birth and early adolescence. Eleven different interventions were assessed in 17 studies, with rating of the quality of methodology and outcomes ranging from lower quality studies (44% quality rating) to robust studies (96% quality rating) in terms of reporting standards, external and internal validity, and power. Five of those studies focused on interventions administered in the neonatal intensive care unit or shortly postdischarge (e.g., the Mother-Infant Transaction Program and the Newborn Individualized Developmental Care and Assessment Program, documented in two articles each [11%] or the Infant Behavioral Assessment and Intervention Program assessed in one study [about 5%]), while 12 articles reported on interventions administered between the ages of 1.5-12 years old [mostly computerized cognitive training programs such as Cogmed (23%) and BrainGame Brian (17%)]. Of the 17 articles examined, 12 (70%) showed positive short-term outcomes postintervention and 3 (17%) demonstrated positive long-term results with small to large effect sizes (0.23-2.3). Among included studies, 50% showed an overall high risk of bias, 21.4% showed some concerns, and 28.6% were low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the heterogeneity of the programs reviewed, the presented findings should be interpreted as descriptive results. A careful and individualized selection from the various available interventions should be made based on the target population (i.e., age at intervention administration and outcome testing) before implementing these program protocols in clinical settings.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».