Quality of life in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD): A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) often report reduced quality of life (QoL). However, substantial variability in findings across studies hinders insight into the profile of QoL in DCD. To address this, we investigated QoL in children with DCD using a meta-analytic approach, examining overall QoL, and QoL across its separate domains - physical, emotional, social, and school. Participants included 831 children with DCD ( M age = 10.10 years) and 10,283 neurotypical children ( M age = 10.04 years), i.e., controls. Separate meta-analyses were conducted for parent ( N = 8) and child ( N = 7) report data to compare overall QoL between those with and without DCD. Subgroup analyses compared QoL between groups across QoL domains. Concordance between parent and child-report was explored. Children with DCD reported significantly lower overall QoL relative to controls (SMD child = -0.38, p child <.001). This effect was consistent across domains, regardless of report-type. Parents reported significantly worse overall QoL for children with DCD than children themselves (95 % CI parent [-1.59, -0.95], 95 % CI child [-0.52, -0.24]) driven by the social (95 % CI parent [-1.89, -0.52], 95 % CI child [-0.36, -0.03]) and school domains (95 % CI parent [-2.52, -0.65], 95 % CI child [-0.53, -0.15]). Our results demonstrate the widespread impact of DCD on well-being, supporting recent arguments that DCD is more than just a disorder of movement. Discordance between parent and child perceptions highlight the importance of using both report-types when examining QoL in DCD. Our work highlights the need for more research directly comparing the profile of QoL observed in those with DCD to those with neurodevelopmental conditions (either in isolation of, or co-occurrence with, DCD). • First meta-analytical summary of research on QoL of children with DCD. • Children with DCD show poorer QoL than controls. • This effect was observed for overall QoL, and the individual QoL domains. • Reduced QoL in DCD was consistent for both child and parent-reports. • Parents report substantially worse overall QoL than children with DCD themselves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".