1. Lydon S, Moran L, Healy O, Mulhern T, Enright Young K. {{A systematic review and evaluation of inhibitory stimulus control procedures as a treatment for stereotyped behavior among individuals with autism}}. {Dev Neurorehabil};2016 (Dec 23):1-11.
PURPOSE: Stereotypy is pervasive among persons with autism and may impact negatively on social inclusion and learning. The implementation of resource-intensive behavioral interventions to decrease these behaviors has been questioned. Inhibitory stimulus control procedures (ISCPs) comprise a type of antecedent-based intervention that has been proposed as an effective treatment approach for stereotypy but has received limited research attention to date. METHOD: The current systematic review sought to examine and synthesize the literature reporting applications of ISCPs in the treatment of stereotypy among persons with autism. Treatment outcomes were analyzed quantitatively and the status of ISCPs as evidence-based practice was evaluated in accordance with the National Autism Center’s National Standards Report guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 11 studies were reviewed with results indicating that ISCPs constituted an emerging treatment for the stereotypy exhibited by persons with autism. CONCLUSIONS: ISCPs comprise a promising intervention for stereotyped behavior but further research is required.
Lien vers le texte intégral (Open Access ou abonnement)
2. Storch EA. {{Cognitive-behavioural group therapy for youth with high-functioning autism spectrum disorders demonstrates modest effects on social responsiveness}}. {Evid Based Ment Health};2016 (Dec 23)
Lien vers le texte intégral (Open Access ou abonnement)
3. Yip BH, Leonard H, Stock S, Stoltenberg C, Francis RW, Gissler M, Gross R, Schendel D, Sandin S. {{Caesarean section and risk of autism across gestational age: a multi-national cohort study of 5 million births}}. {Int J Epidemiol};2016 (Dec 25)
BACKGROUND: The positive association between caesarean section (CS) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may be attributed to preterm delivery. However, due to lack of statistical power, no previous study thoroughly examined this association across gestational age. Moreover, most studies did not differentiate between emergency and planned CS. METHODS: Using population-based registries of four Nordic countries and Western Australia, our study population included 4 987 390 singletons surviving their first year of life, which included 671 646 CS deliveries and 31 073 ASD children. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) for CS, adjusted for gestational age, site, maternal age and birth year. Stratified analyses were conducted by both gestational age subgroups and by week of gestation. We compared emergency versus planned CS to investigate their potential difference in the risk of ASD. RESULTS: Compared with vaginal delivery, the overall adjusted OR for ASD in CS delivery was 1.26 (95% CI 1.22-1.30). Stratified ORs were 1.25 (1.15-1.37), 1.16 (1.09-1.23), 1.34 (1.28-1.40) and 1.17 (1.04-1.30) for subgroups of gestational weeks 26-36, 37-38, 39-41 and 42-44, respectively. CS was significantly associated with risk of ASD for each week of gestation, from week 36 to 42, consistently across study sites (OR ranged 1.16-1.38). There was no statistically significant difference between emergency and planned CS in the risk of ASD. CONCLUSION: Across the five countries, emergency or planned CS is consistently associated with a modest increased risk of ASD from gestational weeks 36 to 42 when compared with vaginal delivery.
