Postinstitutionalized Children’s Development: Growth, Cognitive, and Language Outcomes

Abstract

Objective-Children adopted internationally from institutions are a growing population presenting to professional care providers. Although postinstitutionalized (PI) children are adopted from multiple world regions, current knowledge is predominantly based on those adopted from Romania and Eastern European countries. This study examines and compares developmental outcomes of PI children adopted from multiple world regions.Method-Five to 11 years after adoption, 8-through 11-year-old PI children (N = 91), children internationally adopted early from foster care (N = 109), and nonadopted children (N = 69) completed screening measures assessing vision, hearing, growth, and cognitive and language abilities. Parents completed questionnaires on service utilization, school performance, preadoptive history, and postadoption environment.Results-Forty-four percent of PI children's growth was stunted (height <10th percentile) at adoption. At assessment, although physically smaller, nearly all PI children had average growth parameters. Relative to nonadopted children and children adopted early from foster care, PI children performed more poorly on cognitive and language screens with increased time in institution related to lower performance. Notably, group means on these measures were within the average range. PI children were more likely to be falling behind academically and to use intervention services. Family environment did not differ between PI and nonadopted children. There were few differences for PI children by world region of adoption once accounting for duration of institutionalization.Conclusions-Despite currently living in similar environments, PI children have specific needs that differ from early-adopted and nonadopted children. Consideration of multiple factors, including length of institutionalization, is essential when providing care for these children. Keywordsinstitutional care; early deprivation; international adoption; physical growth; school performance Throughout recent decades, the number of children adopted into the United States from institutional (e.g., orphanage) conditions overseas has grown. Between 1998 and 2008, >215,000 children entered the United States through adoption,1 with estimates that 85% of internationally adopted children spend some or all of their lives in institutions before adoption. 2 Conditions within these institutions are often marked by high levels of deprivation. For example, children in these settings are often undernourished, receive poor medical care, spend Copyright © 2009 NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript much of their time unoccupied, and quality of their interactions with caregivers is frequently poor.3 Institutionalized children may be left in cribs or placed on the floor to play alone, thus resulting in inadequate motor and cognitive stimulation.2 Postinstitutionalized (PI) children come from all regions of the developing world. They represent a significant and growing population with specific needs to be addressed ...

Prevalence of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders in Child Care Settings: A Meta-analysis

“…As with FAS, the 2 countries with the highest reported prevalence of FASD among children and youth in child-care settings were Russia 47 and Sweden, 58 397 per 1000 (orphanage) and 521 per 1000 (adoptees from Eastern Europe), respectively, and 40 per 1000 was reported for Israel 45 (foster care and preadoption children) and the United States 64,68 (adoptees from Eastern Europe).…”

“…Thirty-four articles (representing 33 studies) contained relevant data and were selected for data extraction. A schematic diagram of the search strategy is depicted in Fig 1. Data on the prevalence of FAS and/or FASD in child-care systems were available from only 8 countries, as follows: Brazil (1 study 40 ), Chile (2 studies 41,42 ) Canada (3 studies 4,43,44 ), Israel (1 study 45 ), Russia (10 studies 11,46-55 ), Spain (1 study 56 ), Sweden (3 studies [57][58][59] ), and the United States (USA; 11 studies [60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70] ). One study reported on the prevalence of FAS among preadoption children from Eastern Europe (Romania, Ukraine, Moldova).…”

Risiko Masalah Perkembangan dan Mental Emosional Anak yang Diasuh di Panti Asuhan Dibandingkan dengan Diasuh Orangtua Kandung

“…Anak yang diadopsi, menunjukkan keterlambatan pertumbuhan serta kemampuan bahasa dan kognitif yang relatif lebih rendah. 6 Selain itu, terdapat perbedaan status perkembangan, fungsi kognitif, dan emosi lebih baik pada anak yang diasuh di panti asuhan dibandingkan dengan anak yang diterlantarkan. 7,8 Pengasuh dengan pendidikan yang lebih, telah terlatih dengan aktivitas yang mendidik, jumlah pengasuh dengan rasio yang lebih sedikit bila dibandingkan dengan anak (1:4), dan pengasuh yang telah mendapat pelatihan serta supervisi berkala akan menghasilkan anak dengan nilai perkembangan yang lebih baik.…”

“…Penelitian oleh Loman dkk. 6 memperlihatkan bahwa angka kejadian depresi pada anak yang kehilangan orangtua, kemudian yang tinggal di panti asuhan lebih tinggi bila dibandingkan dengan anak yang tinggal bersama kedua orangtuanya. Perilaku menentang dapat terjadi akibat sikap menolak orangtua/pengasuh, anak yang bersangkutan menjadi agresif, tidak mau menurut, dan suka bertengkar.…”

Do estresse precoce à depressão: avaliação da atividade do eixo Hipotálamo-Pituitária-Adrenal (HPA) e da função cognitiva

“…As evidências que sugerem que as funções cognitivas são afetadas pelas adversidades ocorridas na infância são bastante numerosas (Wagner, Mu, Helmreich & Huss, M., 2014;De Bellis, Hooper, Woolley & Shenk, 2010;De Bellis, Hooper, Spratt & Woolley, 2009). Estudos demonstraram os efeitos do estresse no início da vida no desempenho cognitivo global (Loman et al, 2009;Cohen et al, 2008;Rutter & O'Connor, 2004), funcionamento executivo (Pollak et al 2010;Bos, Fox, Zeanah & Nelson 2009;Colvert et al 2008) e memória (De Bellis et al 2010;Anda et al 2006;Navalta, Polcari, Webster, Boghossian & Teicher, 2006;Bremner et al 2003), além das funções afetivas como processamento de recompensa, processamento de estímulos sociais e afetivos, e regulação emocional (Pechetel & Pizzagalli, 2011).…”