Strollerderby : AAP

They Say: TV Impairs Kids' Speech

Madeline Holler — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:34:00 GMT

Here's one for the No Need to Panic files: TV impairs speech development.

A new study shows that for every hour a child spends in front of the television, parents speak 770 fewer words. That's both when the parents are watching the show with the child and when they've just plopped the kid in front of the set to take a shower. Also, when the TV is just on in the background.

So why shouldn't we panic?

Earlier studies show that babies who watch a lot of TV catch up to their more sanctimonious peers by 16 months.

Results of this study appear in the June issue of Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. Researchers looked at 329 children, ages 2 months to 4 years, whom they rigged up with digital recorders one day per month for an average of six months. The number of words heard and spoken were counted. Analysts compared the number of words exchanged while the TV was one against the number while the TV was off. On average, adults speak more than 900 words per hour when the TV is off.

Good information and probably not all that surprising, considering most people's experiences when, let's say at a party, the TV goes on. All eyes turn to the plasma screen.

One of the lead researchers, Dimitri Christakis of the Seattle Children's Research Institute, said while this doesn't exactly show that TV is harmful, it also shows it's not helpful, which is one reason the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends against TV for kids younger than 2.

Commenting on the study, Victor Strasburger, a professor of pediatrics at the University of New Mexico, leaves us with this guilt-inducing advice:

"We need to avoid parking babies in front of screens," Strasburger says. "Parents need to realize they need to be the primary entertainment for their babies. Parents are movie stars when their kids are babies. It doesn't last long."

Sure. But sometimes, super star Mom or Dad needs to take five in the Green Room, you know?

They Say: Formula Not Necessarily Fattening. But!

Oldest Mum Gives Son a Young Name

They Say: We Don't Know How the Hell to Treat Pregnant Women

Police Discover Girl Raised by Dogs

Sonogram Cufflinks for Father's Day ... or a Pro-Life March

Photo: futureofchildren.princeton.edu

They Say: School Makes Your Kid Stupid, Fat and Mean

Madeline Holler — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:08:00 GMT

If your kid goes to one of those academic and/or desperate to improve schools, where all the little ones are hunkered down drilling math facts and learning phonics and taking practice test after practice test, you might need to worry.

Schools responding to the test score requirements of No Child Left Behind -- many of which have given up recess and other free time to up math and reading test performance -- are failing children (yet again!) in terms of learning how to behave socially.

From Reuters (via Yahoo!):

"The available research suggests that recess may play an important role in the learning, social development, and health of children in elementary school," the research team said in a study published in Pediatrics, the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

But today many children get less free time and fewer physical outlets at school "because many school districts responded to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 by reducing time committed to recess, the creative arts, and even physical education in an effort to focus on reading and mathematics," they added.

These schools, which often serve urban children who don't get much free time outdoors either, are also not helping the rise in childhood obesity. Another topic, another day.

Here's my question: if learning the academic stuff like math and reading is all about putting in hours, why not up those hours? Not by killing off art and P.E. and music, but by extending the school year. The U.S. school year is surprisingly short and the summer break is painfully (and harmfully, if you ask me) long.

You teachers out there might hate me for this, but the normal two-month summer break should be way shortened -- to two or three weeks. Then the days could be less packed, there would be time to bring back music and art and who knows what other long-term learning projects.

What do you think?

Photo: DrRobyn.blogspot.com

AAP: Delayed Vaccines Too Risky for Kids

JeanneSager — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:24:00 GMT

Parents who have become wary of vaccinations for their children have been making the news for ahile now. But decisions by parents to simply delay vaccinating their kids seemed to have taken off this year.

It’s a trend that’s alarmed the American Academy of Pediatrics – enough to prompt the AAP to publish an article this week, along with its new vaccination guidelines, that strikes at the core of the delayed vaccine movement.

The movement got traction this year with sales of pediatrician Dr. Robert Sears’ book. The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for Your Child came out last fall, and calls for splitting up the MMR and chicken pox vaccinations.

“Theoretically, giving each shot separately may allow the immune system to create better immunity to the disease,” Sears says in a blog that complements the Amazon listing for the book. “Since the MMR and chickenpox vaccines are live viruses, injecting them all on the same day is like exposing a child to all four diseases at once. That doesn’t happen in nature, and I feel it is safer to ‘simulate’ these infections one at a time so a child can handle them better.”

The AAP’s article comes from the desk of Dr. Paul Offit, chief of infectious diseases at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, who cites that break Sears says will allow the child’s body to heal may actually put a baby at further risk. What’s more, Offit says Sears developed his “delayed schedule” without any clinical trials to determine how effective or safe they might be for the kids.

"This alternative schedule may respond to parental anxiety at the price of keeping the baby susceptible to serious infectious diseases for a longer period of time," Offit notes.

Ironically, even Sears can’t say the delay is the best bet for baby.
In the same blog, he notes, “Now, I admit that this precaution is completely theoretical. I have no research to show that giving these four live virus vaccines together is dangerous. In fact, in safety research virtually all kids who get them together don’t have any apparent problems at all.”

Regardless, Sears stands behind his writings, and he says parents who are wary of going forward with the vaccination schedules put forth by their doctors would do better breaking them up than they would to eliminate vaccinations entirely. He is also supportive of parents going full bore with their vaccination plans – and following the AAP-approved schedule.

So who do you trust? Raised in a healthcare-heavy home, I’ve always been pro-vaccine myself, so I can hardly speak for the anti-vaccine crowd. But for those parents who are still on the fence, does the lack of clinical trials bother you? Or does Dr. Sears’ all-encompassing attitude give you faith that he’s got your kids’ best interests at heart?

Image: Amazon

Baby Born on Mom and Dad's Birthday

They Say: Schools Near Fast Food Makes Fat Kids

Is Going Hard on Handmade Bad for Parents?

Teen Has Cancer and Lives in a Car

The Family Who Pops Pills Together, Stays Together

Adrienne Martini — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:00:00 GMT

Last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics released new recommendations that set off a storm of virtual outrage all over the blogosphere. Did the AAP hit on a hot topic like breastfeeding an 8-year old or co-sleeping with a newborn? No. The topic at hand involved a pharmaceutical that many take every day.

The AAP recommended giving cholesterol-lowering drugs to kids over the age of 8 who fall into certain risk profiles.

The big question on many folks' minds involves the close relationship between doctors and drug companies. While that it is a pungent rind on which to chew, the greater issue seems to be the lack of proof that these drugs function in the same way in kids that they do in adults and whether or not their ingestion will have the desired effect. Does a kid with lower cholesterol have a decreased risk of developing heart disease? We simply don't know.

For a round-up of all of arguments, look here. And for one pediatrician's take, look here.

Illo: Kim Scafuro

Pediatricians Group: Screen Early and Often for Autism

Madeline Holler — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 12:24:00 GMT

There’s no cure for autism, but those with firsthand experience say early therapy can lessen the severity of this disorder. With that in mind, the American Academy of Pediatrics has come out with a strong recommendation that all children be screened twice for autism by the age of two.

For parents, this means the doctor will ask at well baby checkups whether their 4-month-old smiles at the sound of her parents’ voices, and if their 9-month-olds babble, or their 1-year-olds point to toys. They may even ask whether your young one responds to his own name.

Of course, the AAP says to temper your panic if the answer to any of these is "no." These are just signs that may hint at more focused testing.

Want to know what autism looks like? You can watch video clips of autistic kids contrasted with unaffected children’s behavior at a website, which is sponsored by Autism Speaks and First Signs. The two groups want to promote early diagnonis and treatment.

New reports also say children with suspected autism should begin treatment even before being formally diagnosed. Also, these reports warn parents about the special diets and alternative treatments endorsed by celebrities, saying there's no proof those work. (I think they’re talking to you, Mr. Travolta).

Experts say one in 150 U.S. children have some form of autism. Pediatrician awareness and early testing might make parents who know from autism feel less responsible for diagnosing others.