We aimed to assess comprehensively the prevalence of perinatal risks experienced by a potentially high-risk yet understudied population of children domestically adopted in the United States. Data are from participant report and medical records from mothers (n = 580) who completed a domestic adoption placement with nonrelatives at or near birth (Mean placement age = 7 days). We describe a comprehensive measure of perinatal risks, including divergences from previous assessment tools and the incorporation of multiple reporters, and report the prevalence of various types of perinatal risks. The prevalence of each specific risk factor was generally low, although several risks were more prevalent in this sample than estimates from nationally representative publicly available data. Nearly the entire sample (99%) experienced some type of risk exposure. Birth mothers who placed their children for adoption domestically in the US experience higher levels of perinatal risks than the national average, but not for all specific types of risk. Thus, the developmental trajectories of children adopted domestically may systematically differ from the general population to the extent that these specific perinatal risks impact development.

A wide variety of perinatal risk factors have been linked to later developmental outcomes in children. Much of this work has relied on either birth/medical records or mothers’ self-reports collected after delivery, and there has been an ongoing debate about which strategy provides the most accurate and reliable data. This report uses a parent-offspring adoption design (N = 561 families) to (1) examine the correspondence between medical record data and self-report data, (2) examine how perinatal risk factors may influence child internalizing and externalizing behavior at age 4.5 years, and (3) explore interactions among genetic, perinatal risk, and rearing environment on child internalizing and externalizing behavior during early childhood. The agreement of self-reports and medical records data was relatively high (51–100%), although there was some variation based on the construct. There were few main effects of perinatal risk on child outcomes; however, there were several 2- and 3-way interactions suggesting that the combined influences of genetic, perinatal, and rearing environmental risks are important, particularly for predicting whether children exhibit internalizing versus externalizing symptoms at age 4.5 years.

Objective: Mothers are known to be reliable reporters of smoking during pregnancy, type of delivery, and birth weight when compared with medical records. Few studies have considered whether the timing of retrospective collection affects the mother's retrospective self-report. We examined the consistency of maternal retrospective recall of prenatal experiences, behaviors, and basic birth outcomes between 6 months and 8 years postpartum. Method: We examined 117 mothers (62% White, 44% living in a committed relationship, median high school education) from the Early Growth and Development Study (EGDS). EGDS is a longitudinal adoption study that includes birth mothers of children born between 2003 and 2009 who were involved in a domestic adoption. Using the modified life history calendar and a pregnancy screener, mothers reported on their prenatal health behaviors, prenatal substance use, and labor and delivery at 6 months and 8 years postpartum. Cohen κ was calculated to examine consistency, and χ2 tests were used to test differences by parity and maternal education. Results: Mothers' recall was very good for recall of the type of delivery and good for smoking during pregnancy, medicine used for labor induction, and specific medical problems (i.e., pre-eclampsia, sexually transmitted infections, and kidney infections). Recall consistency was poor for illicit drug use, specific prenatal tests performed (i.e., amniocentesis and emergency room visits), and using drugs other than an epidural during delivery. Conclusion: This study provides support for using retrospective collection of maternal self-report on some prenatal experiences up to 8 years postpartum and offers a potential way to more accurately collect self-reported prenatal experiences.

PurposeUnder-desk pedaling devices could help reduce health risks associated with the global decline in work-related energy expenditure. However, the optimal pedaling work rate to facilitate concurrent work performance among physically inactive adults is unclear. We examined the effects of two light-intensity pedaling work rates on physically inactive adults’ work performance.MethodsWe recruited equal numbers of older (45–65 yr) versus younger (20–44 yr), male versus female, and overweight/obese (body mass index [BMI], 25–35 kg·m−2) versus normal weight (BMI, 18.5–24.9 kg·m−2) participants. Using a Graeco-Latin square design, participants (n = 96) completed a laboratory experiment to evaluate the effects of using an under-desk pedaling device at two seated light-intensity work rates (17 and 25 W), relative to a seated nonpedaling condition on objectively measured typing, reading, logical reasoning, and phone task performance. Ergonomic comfort under each pedaling work rate was also assessed. Equivalence tests were used to compare work performance under the pedaling versus nonpedaling conditions.ResultsTreatment fidelity to the 17- and 25-W pedaling work rates exceeded 95%. Mean work performance scores for each pedaling and nonpedaling condition were equivalent under alpha = 0.025. Age, sex, and BMI did not significantly moderate the effect of pedaling on work performance. Participants reported greater ergonomic comfort while completing work tasks at the 17-W relative to the 25-W work rate.ConclusionsPhysically inactive adults obtained similar work performance scores under the 17- and 25-W pedaling and the nonpedaling conditions, suggesting that either pedaling work rate could help reduce health risks of sedentary work time. The 17-W work rate yielded greater ergonomic comfort and may be an appropriate starting point for introducing diverse inactive workers to under-desk pedaling.