The Journal of Korean Academy of Sensory Integration (대한감각통합치료학회지)

Korean Academy of Sensory Integration (대한감각통합치료학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Study on Correlation of Sensory Processing ability With Feeding of Preterm Infants and Toddlers

조산으로 출생한 영유아의 감각처리능력과 섭식의 상관관계

  • Kim, Mi-Su (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, Graduate School of Inje University) ;
  • Kim, Kyeong-Mi (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, College of Health and Medical Affairs, Inje University) ;
  • Chang, Moon-Young (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, College of Health and Medical Affairs, Inje University) ;
  • Hong, Eunkyoung (Dept. of Occupational Therapy, Shinsung University)
  • 김미수 (인제대학교 대학원 작업치료학과) ;
  • 김경미 (인제대학교 보건의료융합대학 작업치료학과) ;
  • 장문영 (인제대학교 보건의료융합대학 작업치료학과) ;
  • 홍은경 (신성대학교 작업치료과)
  • Received : 2019.08.10
  • Accepted : 2019.09.20
  • Published : 2019.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose : The purpose of this study was to compare the difference between preterm infants and toddlers (PT) and full-term infant and toddler (FT) of sensory processing ability, feeding as well as investigate the correlation of sensory processing ability with feeding of preterm infants and toddlers. Methods : The subjects of a study were 107 including 51 PT and 56 FT. Infant/Toddler Sensory Profile 2 (ITSP 2) was used to assess sensory processing ability. The Behavioral Pediatrics Feeding Assessment (BPFAS) was used to assess feeding behavior. The collected data were analyzed by using SPSS 21.0. Independent sample t-test was used in order to compare the difference between PT group and FT group. Pearson correlation analysis was used in order to investigate the correlation of sensory processing ability with feeding of preterm infants and toddlers. Results : There was a significant difference in sensory sensitivity and oral sensory processing between with PT group and FT group (p<0.05). There was a significant difference in feeding behavior between with PT group and FT group (p<.05). In PT group, there are positive correlations of sensory avoidance (r=.443) and sensory sensitivity (r=.374) with feeding frequency. General behavior (r=.390) and oral sensory processing (r=.513) showed a positive correlation with feeding frequency. In addition, oral sensory processing (r=.529) showed a positive correlation with feeding problem. Conclusion : It is proved that the interrelationship of sensory processing ability with feeding and of preterm infants and toddlers. And it is meaningful to recognize significance of sensory processing characteristics to comprehend feeding and of preterm infants and toddlers.

목적 : 본 연구의 목적은 조산으로 출생한 영유아와 만삭아의 감각처리능력과 섭식의 차이를 비교하고 조산으로 출생한 영유아의 감각처리능력과 섭식의 상관관계를 알아보는 것이다. 연구방법 : 본 연구의 대상자는 107명으로 조산아 51명, 만삭아 56명이었다. 감각처리능력을 평가하기 위해 영유아 감각프로파일 2(Infant/Toddler Sensory Profile 2; ITSP 2)를 사용하였고 섭식을 평가하기 위해 아동섭식행동평가(Behavioral Pediatrics Feeding Assessment; BPFAS)를 사용하였다. 수집된 자료는 SPSS 21.0을 사용하여 분석하였다. 조산아와 만삭아의 차이를 알아보기 위하여 독립표본 t 검정을 사용하였으며, 조산아의 감각처리능력과 섭식의 상관관계를 알아보기 위해 Pearson 상관분석을 사용하였다. 연구결과 : 조산아와 만삭아의 감각처리능력을 비교한 결과 감각특성 중 감각예민(p=.019), 하위영역 중 구강감각처리능력(p=.001)에서 유의한 차이를 보였다. 또한 조산아와 만삭아의 섭식을 비교한 결과 유의한 차이를 보였다(p=.00). 조산아의 감각처리특성 중 감각회피(r=.443), 감각예민(r=.374)은 섭식빈도와 양의 상관관계를 보였고 감각처리 하위영역 중 일반적 행동(r=.390), 구강감각처리(r=.513)는 섭식빈도와 양의 상관관계를 보였으며 구강감각처리(r=.529)는 섭식문제와 양의 상관관계를 보였다. 결론 : 본 연구는 조산아와 만삭아의 감각처리능력과 섭식에서 차이가 있는 것을 확인하였다. 또한 조산아의 감각처리능력은 섭식과 상관관계가 있는 것을 알 수 있었다. 이를 통해 조산아의 섭식을 이해하기 위해 감각처리능력이 중요하다는 근거를 제시하는데 의의가 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. Als, H. (1986). A synactive model of neonatal behavioral organization: Framework for the assessment of neurobehavioral development in the premature infant and for support of infants and parents in the neonatal intensive care environment. Physical & Occupational Therapy in Pediatrics, 6(3-4), 3-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/J006v06n03_02
  2. Alvik, A., Torgersen, A. M., Aalen, O. O., & Lindemann, R. (2011). Binge alcohol exposure once a week in early pregnancy predicts temperament and sleeping problems in the infant. Early Human Development, 87, 837-833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2011.06.009
  3. Anderson, P., & Doyle, L. (2003). Neurobehavioral outcomes of school-age children born extremely low birth weight or very preterm in the 1990s. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289(24), 3264-3273. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.289.24.3264
  4. Bart, O., Shayevits, S., Gabis, L. V., & Morag, I. (2011). Prediction and sensory modulation of late preterm infants at 12 months: A prospective study. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 2732-2738. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2011.05.037
  5. Crist, W., & Napier-Phillips, A. (2001). Mealtime behaviors of young children: A comparison of normative and clinical data. Journal of Developmental Behavior Pediatric, 22(5), 279-286. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004703-200110000-00001
  6. DeGangi, G. A. (2000). Pediatric disorders of regulation in affect and behavior. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  7. Dodrill, P., McMahon, S., Ward, E., Weir, K., Donovan, T., & Riddle, B. (2004). Long-term oral sensitivity and feeding skills of low-risk preterm infants. Early Human Development, 76, 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2003.10.001
  8. Dovey, T. M., Jordan, C., Aldridge, V. K., & Martin, C. I. (2013). Screening for feeding disorders. Creating critical values using the Behavioural Pediatrics Feeding Assessment Scale. Appetite, 69, 108-113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2013.05.019
  9. Dovey, T. M., & Martin, C. I. (2012). A quantitative psychometric evaluation of an intervention for poor dietary variety in children with a feeding problem of clinical significance. Infant Mental Health Journal, 33(2), 148-162. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21315
  10. Dunn, W. (2014). Sensory Profile 2: User's manual. San Antonio, TX: Psych Corporation.
  11. Eeles, A. L., Anderson, P. J., Brown, N. C., Lee, K. J., Boyd, R. N., & Spittle A. J., et al. (2013). Sensory profiles of children born <30weeks' gestation at 2 years of age and their environmental and biological predictors. Early Human Development, 89(9), 727-732. http://dx.doi.org/10.101/j.earlhumdev.2013.05.005
  12. Greenspan, S. J., & Porges, S. W. (1984). Psychopathology in infancy and early childhood: Clinical perspectives on the organization sensory and affective-thematic experience. Child Development, 5(1), 49-70. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129834
  13. Howe, T. H., Sheu, C. F., & Wang, T. N. (2019). Feeding patterns and parental perceptions of feeding issues of preterm infants in the first 2 years of life. American Occupational Therapy Association, 73(2), 1-10.
  14. Kessenich, M. (2003). Developmental outcomes of premature, low birth weight, and medically fragile infants. Newborn and Infant Nursing Reviews, 3(3), 80-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1527-3369(03)00033-3
  15. Lickliter, R. (2011). The integrated development of sensory organization. Clinics in Prinatology, 38(4), 591-603. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clp.2011.08.007
  16. Machado, A. C. C. P., Oliveira, S. R., Magalhaes, L. C., Miranda, D. M. M., & Bouzada, M. C. F. (2017). Sensory processing during childhood in preterm infants: A systematic review. Revista Paullista de Pediatia, 35(10), 92-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1984-0462/;2017;35;1;00008
  17. Mento, G., & Bisiacchi, P. S. (2012). Neurocognitive development in preterm infants: Insights from different approaches. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.03.009
  18. Mitchell, A. W., Moore, E. M., Ronerts, E. J., Hachtel, K. W., & Brown, M. S. (2015). Sensory processing disorder in children ages birth-3 years born prematurely: A systematic review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 69(1), 1-11.
  19. Nieuwenhuis, T., Verhagen, E. A., Bos, A. F., & van Dijk, M. W. G. (2016). Children born preterm and full have similar rates of feeding problems at three years of age. Foundation acta Pediatrica, 105(10), 452-457. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.13467
  20. Rahkonen, P., Aulikiki, L., Pesonen A. K., Raikkonen, K., Vanhatalo, S. & Autti, T., et al. (2015). Atypical sensory processing is common in extremely low gestational age children. Foundation Acta Paediatrica, 104(5), 522-528. https://doi.org/10.1111/apa.12911
  21. Rocha, A. D., Moreira, M. E., Pimenta, H. P., Ramos, J. R., & Lucena, S. L. (2007). A randomized study of the efficacy of sensory-motor-oral stimulation and non-nutritive sucking in very low birth weight infant. Early Human Development, 83(6), 385-388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2006.08.003
  22. Roofthooft, D. W. E., Simons, S. H. P., Anand, K, J. S., Tibboel, D., & van Dijk, M. (2014). Eight years later, are we still hurting newborn infants? Neonatology, 105(3), 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1159/000357207
  23. Schaaf, R, C., & Anzalone, M. E. (2001). Sensory integration with high risk. infants and young children. In S. S. Roley, E. I. Blanche & R. C. Schaaf (Eds.), Understanding the nature of sensory integration with diverse population (pp. 275-300). San Antonio, TX: Therapy Skill Builders.
  24. Volpe, J. J. (2009). Brain injury in premature infants: A complex amalgam of destructive and developmental disturbances. Lancet Neurology, 8(1), 110-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(08)70294-1