ArticlePloS one2022
Is early childhood development impeded by the birth timing of the younger sibling?
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Short birth interval in the Asia-Pacific region: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of global health · 2024Pooled it
- Birth Order and Screen Time as Predictors of Emotion Comprehension Development in 5- to 7-Year-Old Boys and Girls.Psychology in Russia : state of the art · 2026Article
- Perinatal and Childhood Risk Factors of Adverse Early Childhood Developmental Outcomes: A Systematic Review Using a Socioecological Model.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Emotional and Behavioral Changes in Preschool Firstborn Children During Transition to Siblinghood: A Mixed Methods Study.Psychology research and behavior management · 2023Article
- The effects of birth spacing on early childhood development in high-income nations: A systematic review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigated whether the timing of birth of the younger siblings was associated with the risk of the older siblings' developmental vulnerability in early childhood.
methodsLinkage of population-level birth registration, hospital, and perinatal datasets to Australian Early Development Census (AEDC) records (2009-2015), enabled follow-up of a cohort of 32,324 Western Australia born singletons. Children with scores <10th percentile on an individual AEDC domain (Physical Health and Wellbeing; Social Competence; Emotional Maturity; Language and Cognitive Skills (school-based); and Communication Skills and General Knowledge) were classified as developmentally vulnerable. Modified Poisson Regression was used to estimate relative risks (RR) for associations between post-birth interpregnancy intervals (IPIs) and developmental vulnerability.
resultsRelative to post-birth IPIs of 18-23 months, post-birth IPIs of <6 and 6-11 months were associated with an increased risk of children being classified as DV1 (aRR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.11-1.31) and DV2 (aRR 1.31, 95% CI: 1.15-1.49); and DV1 (aRR 1.10, 95% CI: 1.03-1.17) and DV2 (aRR 1.21, 95% CI: 1.09-1.34), respectively. Post-birth IPIs of <6 months were associated with an increased risk on four of the five AEDC domains. Post-birth IPIs of 48-60 months were associated with an increased risk of developmental vulnerability; however, the risk was statistically significant for DV1, DV2 and the domains of Emotional Maturity and Language and Cognitive Skills (school-based).
conclusionsDevelopmental vulnerability was associated with having a closely spaced younger sibling (<12 months post-birth IPIs). Optimising birth spacing should be further investigated as a potential means for improving child development outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.