Comparison of the Effects of Beckman Oral Stimulation

Document Type : Original article

Authors

1 Ph.D Candidate of Speech and Language Pathology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran

2 MSc in Speech and Language Pathology, Mashhad, Iran

3 Neonatologist, Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Neonatal Research Center, Imam Reza Hospital, Mashhad, Iran

4 Ph.D Candidate of Speech and Language Pathology, Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

5 MSc. of Speech Therapy, University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Pediatric Neurorehabilitation Research Center, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Background and Aim: Canonical babbling is a crucial stage in speech and language development. Researchers have suggested that preterm infants show delay in canonical babbling plus speech and language development in future. Beckman Oral Stimulation is a sensory non-speech oral approach. Gender is one of the risk factors for delay and language impairment in preterm infants. In the present study we made an attept to investigate the effects of Beckman Oral Stimulation approach on the frequency of canonical babbling in preterm infants after six months.
Material and Methods: A randomized clinical trial was performed on preterm infants with 28-34 weeks gestational ages in "Imam Reza" and "17th of Shahrivar" NICU hospitals in two groups. After visiting the inclusion-exclusion criteria, the recruited infants were randomly assigned to Beckman oral stimulation (n=13) and control (n=13 per group) groups. We compared and studied the infants' sensory stimulation and the effects of gender and canonical babbling between the two groups.
Results: The findings revealed that the babbling frequency was more in girls (p : 0.021) than in boys (p: 0.029).
Conclusion: It seems that Beckman sensory stimulation has more effects on canonical babbling in preterm girls than in preterm boys.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Mamilton BE, Hoyert DL, et al. Annual summary of vital statistica: 2012-2012. J. Pediatr [Internet] 2013; 10: 548-58.##
  2. Boswell S. Clinical Partnership offer support to infants and families. J. Pediatr 2007; 95: 1005-10. ##
  3. Amir-Ali-Akbari S, Torabi F, Soleimani F, Alavi-Majd H. [Correlation between high risk pregnancy and developmental delay in children 4-60 months in Isfahan, Iran 2010-2011]. RJ. 2011; 11(5): 40-49.  [In Persian] ##
  4. Salt A, Redshaw M. Neurodevelopmental Follow-up after preterm birth: Follow-up after two years. J.earlhumdev 2006; 82: 185-197. ##
  5. Fucile S, Gisele E, Lau C. Oral Stimulation accelerates the transition from tube to oral Feeding in preterm infants. J. Pediatr  2002; 141(2): 6-230. ##
  6. Bulock F, Woolridge MW, Baum JD. Development of Coordination of sucking, swallowing and breathing. Dev. Med. Child. neurol 1990; 32: 669-78. ##
  7. Lau C, Alagugurusamg R, Smith EO, et al. Characterization of the developmental stage of sucking in preterm infants during bottle feeding. Acta paediatr 2000; 89: 846-452. ##
  8. Yadegari F. Prelinguistic development  in prenatal. Journal of science and research Islamic Azad University Khorasgan (Sfehan) 2002; 8: 95-114. [In Persian] ##
  9. Oller DK, Griebel U. Contextual Flexibility in infant vocal development and earliest steps in the Evolution of language. In Oller DK, Griebel U, Editor.  Evolution of Communication Flexibility: Complexity, Creativity, and Adaptability in Human and Animal Communication, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MIT Press; 2008. 141-68. ##

10. Oller DK, Eilers RE, et al. Precursors to speech in infancy: The prediction of speech and language disorders. J Commun Disord [internet] 1999; 32: 223-45. ##

11. Arvedson JC. Swallowing and feeding in infants and young children. GI Motility online [internet] 2006; 1: 1-19. ##

12. Barbosa C, Vasquez S, Parade MA, et al. The relationship of bottle Feedign and other sucking behaviors with speech disorder in Patagonian preschoolers. BMC Pediatrics [internet]  2009; 9: 1471-2431. ##

13. Roles and Responsibilities of speech–language pathologists in the          Neonatal Intensive care unit: Guidelines. ASHA [internet] 2005. ##

14. Asadollahpour F, Yadegari F, Soleimani F, Younesian Sh. Theeffect of Beckman prefeeding oral stimulation program on feeding performance of preterm infants.J Res Rehabil Sci 2013; 9(4): 683-69. [In Persian] ##

15. Fucile S, Gisel EG, Lau C. Effect of an oral stimulation program on sucking skill maturation of preterm infants. Dev. Med. Child. neurol [internet] 2005; 47: 131-141. ##

16. Berin Nezhad L, Mehrnosh N, Haghani H. The effect of Empowerment Program on Mother-Infant Interaction and Weight Gain in Preterm Infants Hospitalized in Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. Zahedan Journal of Research in Medical Sciences in Iran 2013; 14(9), 19-23. [In Persian] ##

17. Olafsena KS, et al. Joint attention in term and preterm infants at 12 months corrected age: The significance of gender and intervention based on a randomized controlled trial. Infant Behavior and Development [Internet] 2006; 29 (4): 554-63. ##

18. Hintz SR, Kendrick DE, et al. Gender differences in neurodevelopmental outcomes among extremely preterm, extremely-low-birthweight infants. Acta Paediatr [Internet] 2006; 95 (10): 1239–48. ##

19. Jennische M, Sedin G. Speech and language skills in children who required neonatal intensive care. II. Linguistic skills at 6½ years of age. Acta Paediatr [Internet] 1999; 88: 371-83. ##

The Scientific Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine
Volume 6, Issue 4
January and February 2018
Pages 175-181

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 18 October 2016
  • Revise Date: 19 December 2016
  • Accept Date: 02 March 2017
  • First Publish Date: 22 December 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics