Interventions for Children with Neurocognitive Impairments in Resource-Limited Settings: A Systematic Review

Amelia E Van Pelt1,2,3, Matthew I Lipow2,4, J Cobb Scott5,6

  • 1Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States 19104-6021.

Insights

Interventions for children with neurocognitive deficits in low-resource settings show inconsistent efficacy. Some strategies improved cognitive function, but more research is needed to identify effective pediatric cognitive support.

Area of Science:

  • Pediatric Neurocognition
  • Global Health Interventions
  • Resource-Limited Settings Research

Background:

  • Children globally face neurocognitive deficits from chronic conditions like HIV and malaria.
  • Resource-limited settings amplify cognitive risks due to poverty and limited intervention access.
  • Existing literature lacks consensus on effective cognitive interventions for youth in these areas.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically identify and evaluate interventions for youth with neurocognitive deficits in resource-limited settings.
  • To synthesize current evidence on the efficacy of various cognitive support strategies.
  • To inform future research and intervention development in under-resourced contexts.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic review of peer-reviewed literature across five major databases.
  • Inclusion criteria focused on studies in low- and middle-income countries, and resource-limited settings within high-income countries.
  • Cognitive impairment broadly defined; interventions included caregiver training, cognitive training, physical activity, and nutritional supplementation.

Main Results:

  • Nineteen articles met inclusion criteria; interventions targeted memory and attention domains primarily.
  • Overall intervention efficacy was inconsistent across studies and cognitive domains.
  • Some individual studies showed statistically significant cognitive improvements in specific pediatric groups.

Conclusions:

  • Few studies have evaluated pediatric cognitive support interventions in low-resource contexts, indicating a research gap.
  • While overall efficacy is inconsistent, certain strategies show promise for specific populations.
  • Future research should focus on neurocognitive screening and tailored interventions as capacity grows in resource-limited settings.

Related Concept Videos

Learning Disabilities01:25

Learning Disabilities

Learning disabilities are cognitive disorders caused by neurological impairments that affect cognitive functions like language and reading, without indicating overall intellectual or developmental challenges. These disabilities differ from global intellectual or developmental disabilities as they are limited to distinct cognitive functions. Common learning disabilities include dysgraphia, dyslexia, and dyscalculia, each of which impacts unique aspects of learning.
Dyslexia
Dyslexia is a...
467
Nursing Interventions II: Selecting and Classifying the Nursing Interventions01:29

Nursing Interventions II: Selecting and Classifying the Nursing Interventions

Creating and executing a nursing diagnosis helps nurses plan care and guide patient, family, and community interventions. They are developed based on a patient's physical evaluation and support measuring the outcomes. It is not recommended to select random interventions throughout the planning process. Instead, consider the following six essential factors when choosing interventions:
2.9K
Information Processing Approach01:30

Information Processing Approach

The information-processing theory of cognitive development centers on fundamental mental processes, including attention, memory, and problem-solving skills. Researchers in this field examine how cognitive abilities, such as working memory, evolve and influence children's overall development. Studies indicate that children with stronger working memory tend to excel in reading comprehension, math, and problem-solving compared to peers with less efficient memory skills. Low working memory is...
361