Age-appropriate early childhood development is greatly influenced by exposure to various mediating and moderating factors. Developmental outcomes cannot be viewed in isolation, but by considering the interaction of the various risks and protective factors that influence early child development. A non-experimental, cross-sectional research design was employed. Data was collected in a low-income community in Gauteng, South Africa. Caregivers with children (n = 276) between the ages of 3 years and 6 years 11 months (mean 51.57 months; SD ± 12.4) whose children were in a preschool were invited to participate in the research study. Participants were divided into two groups, children with developmental delays and children without a developmental delay. The study sample included high risk, vulnerable preschool children, with a developmental delay prevalence of 80.1% (221/276). Families included were exposed to an average of five (SD ± 1.86) environmental and/or biological risks. According to a logistic regression model, three factors were significantly associated with increasing resilience amongst children with no developmental delay: living with both parents (p < 0.031, OR 4.5, 95% CI 1.2-17.2), caregivers having at least completed Grade 8 to 12 (p < 0.027, OR 11.9, 95% CI 1.4-10.5) and parents being married (p < 0.023, OR 5.1, 95% CI 1.3-20.9). Important protective factors in low-income communities like caregiver education, living with both parents and parental marriage can inform public health messaging and other population-based interventions to support early childhood development.

Purpose: To critically appraise recent literature regarding breastfeeding outcomes and associated risks in HIV-infected (HI) and HIV-exposed (HE) infants, using the AU2 c PRISMA-P statement guidelines. Materials and Methods: Five electronic databases were systematically searched to obtain English publications from the last 10 years (2010-2020), pertaining to breastfeeding outcomes and associated risks of HI and HE infants and children. Gray literature sources were also included. Data were extracted according to various data items and were synthesized using thematic synthesis. Results: Of the initial 7,151 sources identified, 42 articles were eligible for final inclusion. The final selection included 19 cohort studies and 2 expert committee reports, classified as gray literature. The remaining 21 studies comprised case-control, cross-sectional, and randomized controlled trial studies. The following themes were identified: breastfeeding outcomes in HI and HE infants, risks for suboptimal breastfeeding, HI and HE infant growth and developmental outcomes, and barriers and facilitators to feeding decisions. Most studies highlighted HE infants' growth and developmental outcomes and did not directly interrogate breastfeeding outcomes. The most prevalent risks for suboptimal breastfeeding were maternal factors affecting decision making for breastfeeding. Conclusions: This systematic review adds to the evidence of breastfeeding in HIV-affected mother-infant dyads. Findings reiterated that exclusive breastfeeding has a positive outcome on growth and development of all infants irrespective of HIV status. The review highlighted a dearth of research on breastfeeding outcomes of HI and HE infants. Large-scale prospective comparative studies should profile breastfeeding and developmental outcomes of infants with HIV infection or exposure and antiretroviral treatment exposure to enable early identification and intervention for this vulnerable population in low-income settings.

Purpose: This study aimed to critically appraise recent peer-reviewed scientific evidence on the effect of vocal hygiene education on voice quality and function directly and indirectly measured by auditory-perceptual, acoustic, and self-report measures in professional voice users. Method: A systematic review was conducted utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. Five databases were searched using the keywords “vocal hygiene,” “vocal hygiene education,” “vocal health,” “vocal quality,” and “voice quality” with Boolean phrases “AND” and “OR.” Twenty-three studies that met the eligibility criteria were included. Scoring was based on the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's levels of evidence and quality indicators, as well as the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for assessing the risk of bias. Results: Four studies (17%) linked low awareness of vocal hygiene or insufficient vocal hygiene education to self-reported acute and chronic voice symptoms, as well as a greater perception of voice handicap among professional voice users. Numerous studies ( n = 10; 43%) showed that adequate voice training or vocal hygiene education was linked to positive voice outcomes. Six studies (6.26%), however, demonstrated that vocal hygiene education is more effective when combined with direct voice therapy. When vocal hygiene education is presented in isolation, the superiority of a direct voice therapy approach, with or without vocal hygiene education, is seen over a vocal hygiene education program alone (indirect treatment). Conclusions: Recent literature demonstrates mixed results obtained through auditory-perceptual, acoustic, and self-rating measures on the effects of vocal hygiene instruction on vocal quality and function in professional voice users. However, the compelling positive outcomes presented do warrant implementation of vocal hygiene education programs in combination with direct voice therapy for professional voice users.

Children are often only identified with a developmental delay when they enter primary school due to developmental delays hindering academic progress. Detection of at-risk children in low-income communities is typically unavailable due to several challenges. This study validated an mHealth-based developmental screening tool as a potential time- and cost-effective way of delivering services for preschool children. This cross-sectional within-subject study screened 276 preschool children from low-income communities using the mHealth Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) tools. The mHealth PEDS tools’ performance was then evaluated by comparing caregiver concerns according to the PEDS tools with results obtained using a reference standard assessment tool, the Vineland-3. The mHealth PEDS tools identified 237 (85.9%) of children at risk of developmental delay compared to 80.1% ( n = 221) of children identified with a developmental delay using the Vineland-3. Sensitivity of the PEDS tools was high (92.6%) with low specificity (22.5%) using US standardised criteria. Literacy skills were found to be most delayed, according to the PEDS: DM (89.3%; n = 142) and Vineland-3 (87.1%; n = 134). Low specificity of the prescribed criteria may require the implementation of adapted referral criteria within low socio-economic status (SES) settings. The mHealth PEDS tools may still be valuable for preschool developmental surveillance of children within low SES settings. It is recommended, however, that children who are identified with a developmental concern undergo a second screen to reduce false positives.

No abstract