A key element in social development is interaction with others, and preterm infants have an increased risk for problems in this aspect. We aimed to gain additional insight into parents’ perception about their preterm child’s social interaction upon reaching school age. Parents informed us about their child being a little fighter, having issues of coping with their disabilities in social contexts, and how their child withdraws from situations that are overlystimulating. They also expressed their concerns about the future, how they encourage their child, and how they experience the transition to primary school. Parents’ experiences concerning the social interaction of their preterm child can be categorized into eight themes of processes in social interaction: child factors, self-regulation, real-time social interaction, long-term social interaction, parental factors, parenting, social environment, and social experiences. Our proposed model of social interaction in preterm infants visualizes theinterrelatedness between these themes in social interaction
Background: Current use of smartphone cameras by parents create opportunities for longitudinal home-video-assessments to monitor infant development. We developed and validated a home-video method for parents, enabling Pediatric Physical Therapists to assess infants’ gross motor development with the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS). The objective of the present study was to investigate the feasibility of this home-video method from the parents’ perspective. Methods: Parents of 59 typically developing infants (0–19 months) were recruited, 45 parents participated in the study. Information about dropout was collected. A sequential mixed methods design was used to examine feasibility, including questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. While the questionnaires inquired after the practical feasibility of the home-video method, the interviews also allowed parents to comment on their feelings and thoughts using the home-video method. Results: Of 45 participating parents, 34 parents returned both questionnaires and eight parents agreed to an interview. Parent reported effort by the infants was very low: the home-video method is perceived as similar to the normal routine of playing. The parental effort level was acceptable. The main constraint parents reported was time planning. Parents noted it was sometimes difficult to find the right moment to record the infant’s motor behavior, that is, when parents were both at home and their baby was in the appropriate state. Technical problems with the web portal, reported by 28% of the parents were also experienced as a constraint. Positive factors mentioned by parents were: the belief that the home videos are valuable for family use, receiving feedback from a professional, the moments of one-on-one attention and interaction with their babies. Moreover, the process of recording the home videos resulted in an increased parental awareness of, and insight into, the gross motor development of their infant. Conclusion: The AIMS home-video method is feasible for parents of typically developing children. Most constraints are of a practical nature that can be addressed in future applications. Future research is needed to show whether the home-video method is also applicable for parents with an infant at risk of motor development problems.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the development of sucking patterns in small-for-gestational age (SGA) preterm infants differs from appropriate-for-gestational age (AGA) preterm infants.STUDY DESIGN: We assessed sucking patterns in 15 SGA and 34 AGA preterms (gestational age<or=36 weeks) longitudinally from 34 to 50 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA) using the Neonatal Oral-Motor Assessment Scale (NOMAS). At each measurement, we scored sucking as normal, dysfunctional, or disorganized. We examined the development of their sucking patterns in relation to clinical characteristics.RESULTS: SGA preterms developed a normal sucking pattern later than did AGA preterms (median, 50 versus 44 weeks PMA, P=.002). At term-equivalent age, none of the SGA and 38% of the AGA preterms showed normal sucking (P<.05); at 48 to 50 weeks PMA this was 54% and 81%, respectively (P=.064). Abnormal sucking including "incoordination" and dysfunctional sucking were more prevalent in SGA preterms than in AGA preterms (median, 11% versus 0% per infant, P<.05). A higher gestational age and z-score for birth weight were predictive of normal sucking at 50 weeks PMA.CONCLUSIONS: SGA preterms developed a normal sucking pattern later than AGA preterms. Many AGA preterms also developed a normal mature sucking pattern only after they had reached term age.
