Search

BACKGROUND: Kratom is taken to self-treat pain and symptoms of psychiatric disorders, including substance-use disorders (SUDs) and opioid withdrawal. Before COVID-19, kratom use was increasing in the US, however, there are few published data on whether that trend continued during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have affected kratom use in multiple ways. AIM: To examine COVID-19-related changes in kratom use and how these changes were experienced, relative to changes in other commonly used substances. METHODS: Using Amazon Mechanical Turk, 2615 evaluable surveys were completed between September 2020 and March 2021. Responses from past-month and past-year kratom-using adults (N = 174) indicating changes for the better or worse were examined using generalized linear mixed effects models, and relevant open-text responses (n = 85) were thematically coded. RESULTS: For kratom 33% (n = 58) reported a Covid-related increase and 24% (n = 42) reported a Covid-related decrease. Controlling for changes in amount used, alcohol (OR = 5.02), tobacco (OR = 4.72), and nonmedical opioid use (OR = 3.42) were all more likely to have changed for the worse, compared with kratom use. Relative to decreases in kratom use, decreases in alcohol (OR = 3.21) and tobacco (OR = 6.18) use were more likely to be changes for the better. Cannabis use was the only substance to display a probability lower than 50% of being a decrease for the better, and of the increases, cannabis use displayed the highest probability of being for the better. CONCLUSIONS: Increases in kratom and cannabis use were less likely than alcohol and tobacco to be reported as changes for the worse, and decreases in kratom and cannabis use were more likely than alcohol and tobacco to be reported as changes for the better. These findings indicate that people differently conceptualize their relationships with kratom and cannabis, compared to their relationships with alcohol and tobacco. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We asked whether parental questionnaires on the heritage language proficiency of bilingual children might elucidate how proficient bilingual children are in their heritage language. We tested 20 UK-based Polish–English bilingual children between 4;5 and 5;9 years on Polish and English versions of the Cross-linguistic Lexical Tasks (CLTs). These comprise receptive and expressive picture tasks. Our bilingual group performed significantly worse on the Polish CLTs than on the English CLTs overall. They also performed significantly worse on the English CLTs than did an age- and gender-matched group of monolingual English-speaking children. Therefore our bilingual sample represent the type of bilinguals for whom education professionals have difficulty determining whether weak English is due to diminished English input vs. an underlying speech, language or communication need.Parents of the bilinguals completed a Polish adaptation of the Children’s Communication Checklist 2. They also completed the Parents of Bilingual Children Questionnaire (PaBiQ), which includes risk factor measures (‘No Risk Index’ and children’s ‘Current Language Skills’). The PaBiQ also includes measures of the Amount and Length of Exposure to the majority language (English) prior to age four as well as the Proportion of English in the current input. For the bilingual sample the CCC2 General Communication Composite (GCC), which measures structural language, significantly predicted Polish CLT production, uniquely accounting for 25% of the variance. The parent-rated PaBiQ ‘Current Polish Skills’ section predicted the Polish CLT comprehension. While the PaBiQ measure of Amount and Length of English Exposure was related to both Polish comprehension and production, it did not retain significance in a regression analysis. Therefore, parental questionnaires of the heritage language could provide a useful first step for education professionals when deciding whether to refer bilingual children for speech and language assessment. Large scale studies are needed to further develop these parental questionnaires.   [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Language comprehension delays in pre-schoolers are predictive of difficulties in a range of developmental domains. In England, early years practitioners are required to assess the language comprehension of 2-year-olds in their care. Many use a format based on the Early Years Foundation Stage Unique Child Communication Sheet (EYFS:UCCS) in which the child’s language comprehension is assigned to an age band based on written guidance. Seventy 2½–3-year-olds were assessed on the comprehension component of the Preschool Language Scale (PLS) by psychology graduates. Early years practitioners assessed language comprehension in the same children using the EYFS:UCCS and the WellComm, which involves some direct testing. The EYFS:UCCS had poor sensitivity and specificity, and the understanding section did not correlate with the PLS. The WellComm had good to acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity and significantly correlated with the PLS. Early years setting staff can accurately assess the language comprehension of 2-year-olds if provided with a tool which gives specific instructions on administration, but current frequently used procedures (EYFS:UCCS) are not fit for this purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]