Explore the vast range of titles available.

We examined prevalence of diagnosed autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and age at diagnosis according to child’s race/ethnicity and primary household language. From the 2009–2010 National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs, we identified 2729 3–17-year-old US children whose parent reported a current ASD diagnosis. We compared ASD prevalence, mean diagnosis age, and percentage with later diagnoses (≥5 years) across racial/ethnic/primary household language groups: non-Hispanic-white, any language (NHW); non-Hispanic-black, any language (NHB); Hispanic-any-race, English (Hispanic-English); and Hispanic-any-race, other language (Hispanic-Other). We assessed findings by parent-reported ASD severity level and adjusted for family sociodemographics. ASD prevalence estimates were 15.3 (NHW), 10.4 (NHB), 14.1 (Hispanic-English), and 5.2 (Hispanic-Other) per 1000 children. Mean diagnosis age was comparable across racial/ethnic/language groups for 3–4-year-olds. For 5–17-year-olds, diagnosis age varied by race/ethnicity/language and also by ASD severity. In this group, NHW children with mild/moderate ASD had a significantly higher proportion (50.8 %) of later diagnoses than NHB (33.5 %) or Hispanic-Other children (18.0 %). However, NHW children with severe ASD had a comparable or lower (albeit non-significant) proportion (16.4 %) of later diagnoses than NHB (37.8 %), Hispanic-English (30.8 %), and Hispanic-Other children (12.0 %). While NHW children have comparable ASD prevalence and diagnosis age distributions as Hispanic-English children, they have both higher prevalence and proportion of later diagnoses than NHB and Hispanic-Other children. The diagnosis age findings were limited to mild/moderate cases only. Thus, the prevalence disparity might be primarily driven by under-representation (potentially under-identification) of older children with mild/moderate ASD in the two minority groups.

We estimated the prevalence of obesity, overweight, and underweight among US adolescents with and without autism and other learning and behavioral developmental disabilities (DDs) and assessed the health consequences of obesity among adolescents with DDs. From the 2008 to 2010 National Health Interview Survey, we selected 9,619 adolescents ages 12–17 years. Parent respondents reported weight, height, presence of DDs and health conditions. We calculated body mass index (BMI) and defined obesity, overweight, and underweight as ≥95th, ≥85th to <95th, and <5th percentiles, respectively, using established criteria. We created mutually-exclusive DD subgroups using the following order of precedence: autism; intellectual disability; attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder; learning disorder/other developmental delay. We compared BMI outcomes among adolescents in each DD group versus adolescents without DDs using multivariable logistic regression. Socio-demographic factors and birthweight were included as confounders. Estimates were weighted to reflect the US population. Both obesity and underweight prevalences were higher among adolescents with than without DDs [adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR) 1.5 (1.25–1.75) and 1.5 (1.01–2.20), respectively]. Obesity was elevated among adolescents with all DD types, and was highest among the autism subgroup [aPR 2.1 (1.44–3.16)]. Adolescents with either a DD or obesity had higher prevalences of common respiratory, gastrointestinal, dermatological and neurological conditions/symptoms than nonobese adolescents without DDs. Adolescents with both DDs and obesity had the highest estimates for most conditions. Obesity is high among adolescents with autism and other DDs and poses added chronic health risks. Obesity prevention and management approaches for this vulnerable population subgroup need further consideration.

The primary goal of this study was to assess the association between the full birth weight distribution and prevalence of specific developmental disabilities and related measures of health and special education services utilization in US children. Using data from the 1997–2005 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) Sample Child Core, we identified 87,578 children 3–17 years of age with parent-reported information on birth weight. We estimated the prevalences of DDs (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder [ADHD], autism, cerebral palsy, hearing impairment, learning disability without mental retardation, mental retardation, seizures, stuttering/stammering, and other developmental delay) and several indicators of health services utilization within a range of birth weight categories. We calculated odds ratios adjusted for demographic factors (AOR). We observed trends of decreasing disability/indicator prevalence with increasing birth weight up to a plateau. Although associations were strongest for very low birth weight, children with “normal” birth weights of 2,500–2,999 g were more likely than those with birth weights of 3,500–3,999 g to have mental retardation (AOR 1.9 [95% CI: 1.4–2.6]), cerebral palsy (AOR 2.4 [95% CI: 1.5–3.8]), learning disability without mental retardation (AOR 1.2 [95% CI: 1.1–1.4]), ADHD (AOR 1.2 [95% CI: 1.1–1.3]), and other developmental delay (AOR 1.3 [95% CI: 1.1–1.5]) and to receive special education services (AOR 1.3 [95% CI: 1.2–1.5]). While much research has focused on the health and developmental outcomes of low and very low birth weight children, these findings suggest that additional study of a continuous range of birth weights may be warranted.

Microcephaly was not noted in the small population outbreak on Yap Island, but retrospective studies of the larger and later French Polynesian outbreak have identified potential linkages.8 In Brazil, the time frame and geographic birth locations of many of the newborns with microcephaly correspond well to a large outbreak of Zika virus infection that occurred in the area months earlier-aligning with early pregnancy in their mothers.5 Histopathologic evaluation of brain tissue from two newborns with congenital microcephaly who died shortly after birth also revealed the presence of Zika virus.9 Moreover, the severe pattern of congenital microcephaly described in many of the affected infants in Brazil appears consistent with clinical findings from other fetal infections having impact on a developing brain.10 Efforts to determine the exact number of cases of microcephaly in Brazil and the number of those cases potentially linked to Zika virus will be timeconsuming and complex. An early evaluation of potential congenital Zika virus infection in Brazil showed that nearly three fourths of the cases of microcephaly occurred in infants whose mothers reported a symptomatic rash during their first (60%) or second (14%) trimester of pregnancy.5 Rubella has a spectrum of fetal effects, with congenital heart defects, eye anomalies, and hearing impairment as the defining features and effects varying with gestational age at the time of infection.

In November 2015, the Brazilian Ministry of Health (MOH) declared the Zika virus outbreak a public health emergency after an increase in microcephaly cases was reported in the northeast region of the country (1). During 2015-2016, 15 states in Brazil with laboratory-confirmed Zika virus transmission reported an increase in birth prevalence of microcephaly (2.8 cases per 10,000 live births), significantly exceeding prevalence in four states without confirmed transmission (0.6 per 10,000) (2). Although children with microcephaly and laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection have been described in early infancy (3), their subsequent health and development have not been well characterized, constraining planning for the care and support of these children and their families. The Brazilian MOH, the State Health Secretariat of Paraíba, and CDC collaborated on a follow-up investigation of the health and development of children in northeastern Brazil who were reported to national surveillance with microcephaly at birth. Nineteen children with microcephaly at birth and laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection were assessed through clinical evaluations, caregiver interviews, and review of medical records. At follow-up (ages 19-24 months), most of these children had severe motor impairment, seizure disorders, hearing and vision abnormalities, and sleep difficulties. Children with microcephaly and laboratory evidence of Zika virus infection have severe functional limitations and will require specialized care from clinicians and caregivers as they age.

The prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) from the 2007 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) was twice the 2003 NSCH estimate for autism. From each NSCH, we selected children born in the US from 1990 to 2000. We estimated autism prevalence within each 1-year birth cohort to hold genetic and non-genetic prenatal factors constant. Prevalence differences across surveys thus reflect survey measurement changes and/or external identification effects. In 2003, parents were asked whether their child was ever diagnosed with autism. In 2007, parents were asked whether their child was ever diagnosed with an ASD and whether s/he currently had an ASD. For the 1997–2000 birth cohorts (children aged 3–6 years in 2003 and 7–10 years in 2007), relative increases between 2003 autism estimates and 2007 ASD estimates were 200–600 %. For the 1990–1996 birth cohorts (children aged 7–13 years in 2003) increases were lower; nonetheless, differences between 2003 estimates and 2007 “ever ASD” estimates were >100 % for 6 cohorts and differences between 2003 estimates and 2007 “current ASD” estimates were >80 % for 3 cohorts. The magnitude of most birth cohort-specific differences suggests continuing diagnosis of children in the community played a sizable role in the 2003–2007 ASD prevalence increase. While some increase was expected for 1997–2000 cohorts, because some children have later diagnoses coinciding with school entry, increases were also observed for children ages ≥7 years in 2003. Given past ASD subtype studies, the 2003 “autism” question might have missed a modest amount (≤33 %) of ASDs other than autistic disorder.

Drinking alcohol during pregnancy can cause fetal alcohol spectrum disorders, including birth defects, behavioral disorders, and impaired cognitive development (1). Little is known about the co-use of other substances by females who drink during pregnancy. CDC used 2015-2018 data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) to estimate the overall and trimester-specific prevalence of self-reported drinking in the past 12 months, current drinking, and binge drinking, overall and by trimester, and the co-use of other substances among pregnant females aged 12-44 years. Past drinking (12 months) was reported by 64.7% of pregnant respondents. Current drinking (at least one drink in the past 30 days) was reported by 19.6% of respondents who were in their first trimester of pregnancy and 4.7% of respondents who were in their second or third trimester. Binge drinking (consuming four or more drinks on at least one occasion in the past 30 days) was reported by 10.5% of first trimester respondents and 1.4% of second or third trimester respondents. Overall, 38.2% of pregnant respondents who reported current drinking also reported current use of one or more other substances. The substances used most with alcohol were tobacco and marijuana. Self-reported drinking prevalence was substantially lower among second or third trimester respondents than among first trimester respondents. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommends alcohol use and substance use disorders screening for all females seeking obstetric-gynecologic care and counseling patients that there is no known safe level of alcohol use during pregnancy (2).

Treatment of inherited metabolic disorders is accomplished by use of specialized diets employing medical foods and medically necessary supplements. Families seeking insurance coverage for these products express concern that coverage is often limited; the extent of this challenge is not well defined. To learn about limitations in insurance coverage, parents of 305 children with inherited metabolic disorders completed a paper survey providing information about their use of medical foods, modified low-protein foods, prescribed dietary supplements, and medical feeding equipment and supplies for treatment of their child’s disorder as well as details about payment sources for these products. Although nearly all children with inherited metabolic disorders had medical coverage of some type, families paid “out of pocket” for all types of products. Uncovered spending was reported for 11% of families purchasing medical foods, 26% purchasing supplements, 33% of those needing medical feeding supplies, and 59% of families requiring modified low-protein foods. Forty-two percent of families using modified low-protein foods and 21% of families using medical foods reported additional treatment-related expenses of $100 or more per month for these products. Costs of medical foods used to treat inherited metabolic disorders are not completely covered by insurance or other resources. Genet Med15 12, 978–982.

Mental, behavioral, and developmental disorders (MBDDs) begin in early childhood and often affect lifelong health and well-being. Persons who live in rural areas report more health-related disparities than those in urban areas, including poorer health, more health risk behaviors, and less access to health resources. 2011-2012. The National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH) is a cross-sectional, random-digit-dial telephone survey of parents or guardians that collects information on noninstitutionalized children aged <18 years in the United States. Interviews included indicators of health and well-being, health care access, and family and community characteristics. Using data from the 2011-2012 NSCH, this report examines variations in health care, family, and community factors among children aged 2-8 years with and without MBDDs in rural and urban settings. Restricting the data to U.S. children aged 2-8 years with valid responses for child age and sex, each MBDD, and zip code resulted in an analytic sample of 34,535 children; MBDD diagnosis was determined by parent report and was not validated with health care providers or medical records. A higher percentage of all children in small rural and large rural areas compared with all children in urban areas had parents who reported experiencing financial difficulties (i.e., difficulties meeting basic needs such as food and housing). Children in all rural areas more often lacked amenities and lived in a neighborhood in poor condition. However, a lower percentage of children in small rural and isolated areas had parents who reported living in an unsafe neighborhood, and children in isolated areas less often lived in a neighborhood lacking social support, less often lacked a medical home, and less often had a parent with fair or poor mental health. Across rural subtypes, approximately one in six young children had a parent-reported MBDD diagnosis. A higher prevalence was found among children in small rural areas (18.6%) than in urban areas (15.2%). In urban and the majority of rural subtypes, children with an MBDD more often lacked a medical home, had a parent with poor mental health, lived in families with financial difficulties, and lived in a neighborhood lacking physical and social resources than children without an MBDD within each of those community types. Only in urban areas did a higher percentage of children with MBDDs lack health insurance than children without MBDDs. After adjusting for race/ethnicity and poverty among children with MBDDs, those in rural areas more often had a parent with poor mental health and lived in resource-low neighborhoods than those in urban areas. Certain health care, family, and community disparities were more often reported among children with MBDDS than among children without MBDDs in rural and urban areas. Collaboration involving health care, family, and community services and systems can be used to address fragmented services and supports for children with MBDDs, regardless of whether they live in urban or rural areas. However, addressing differences in health care, family, and community factors and leveraging community strengths among children who live in rural areas present opportunities to promote health among children in rural communities.