| Title |
Effects of Prenatal Nicotine Exposure on Infant Language Development: A Cohort Follow Up Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Maternal and Child Health Journal, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10995-016-2158-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carmen Hernández-Martínez, Núria Voltas Moreso, Blanca Ribot Serra, Victoria Arija Val, Joaquín Escribano Macías, Josefa Canals Sans |
| Abstract |
Objectives To study the longitudinal effects of prenatal nicotine exposure on cognitive development, taking into consideration prenatal and postnatal second-hand smoke exposure. Methods A cohort follow up study was carried out. One hundred and fifty-eight pregnant women and their infants were followed during pregnancy and infant development (at 6, 12, 30 months). In each trimester of pregnancy and during postnatal follow-up, a survey was administered to obtain sociodemographic data and the details of maternal and close familial toxic habits. Obstetric and neonatal data were obtained from hospital medical records. To assess cognitive development, the Bayley Scales of Infant Development were applied at 6, 12 and 30 months; to assess language development, the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories were applied at 12 months and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test at 30 months. Results After adjustment for confounding variables, the results showed that infants prenatally exposed to cigarette smoke recorded poor cognitive development scores. Language development was most consistently affected, specifically those aspects related to auditory function (vocalizations, sound discrimination, word imitation, prelinguistic vocalizations, and word and sentence comprehension). Conclusions for Practice Irrespective of prenatal, perinatal and sociodemographic data (including infant postnatal nicotine exposure), prenatal exposure to cigarette smoke and second-hand smoke affect infant cognitive development, especially language abilities. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 104 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 15 | 14% |
| Unknown | 31 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 23 | 22% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 14% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 10% |
| Neuroscience | 7 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Unknown | 32 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2017.
All research outputs
#2,226,738
of 23,906,448 outputs
Outputs from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#210
of 2,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,855
of 371,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Maternal and Child Health Journal
#12
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,906,448 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,039 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,274 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.