Smoking in pregnancy hurts child's reading skills
Published: Sunday, Nov. 18, 2012, 5:26 p.m.
NEW YORK — Babies exposed to their mother's cigarette smoke in the womb later perform more poorly on reading comprehension tests, according to a new study.
“It's not a little difference — it's a big difference in accuracy and comprehension at a critical time when children are being assessed, and are getting a sense of what it means to be successful,” author Dr. Jeffrey Gruen of Yale University said.
In the study, researchers found that children born to mothers who smoked more than one pack per day struggled on tests specifically designed to measure how accurately a child reads aloud and if she understands what she read.
On average, children exposed to high levels of nicotine in utero — defined as the minimum amount in one pack per day — scored 21 percent lower in these areas than classmates born to non-smoking mothers. The difference remained even when researchers took other factors — such as if parents read books to their children, worked in lower-paying jobs or were married — into account.
Put another way, among students who share similar backgrounds and education, a child of a smoking mother on average will be ranked seven places lower in a class of 31 in reading accuracy and comprehension ability, said co-author Jan Frijters of Brock University in Ontario, Canada.
Previous studies have found smoking during pregnancy is linked to lower IQ scores and academic achievement, and more behavioral disorders. The authors found no reports so far that zeroed in on specific reading tasks like accuracy and comprehension in a large population.
The team, which published its results in The Journal of Pediatrics, pulled data from more than 5,000 children involved in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children that began in the early 1990s in the United Kingdom. Only data from children with IQ scores of 76 and higher were used. An IQ score of 70 and below can be the sign of a mental disability.
UK researchers collected questionnaires from mothers before and after giving birth. This helps make the self-reported data more trustworthy, explained Sam Oh of the University of California at San Francisco, who was not involved with the work. If mothers knew their child's reading scores beforehand, they might subconsciously report more or less smoking.
“To me, this study suggests that the effects attributed to in utero smoking can in fact be attributed to the intrauterine environment, and not due to environmental differences that the children grow up in,” Oh told Reuters Health by email.
Despite public health initiatives to discourage smoking, as many as one in six pregnant American women still light up, according to national surveys by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Health and Human Services.
“That is a lot of children,” Dr. Tomáš Paus of the University of Toronto told Reuters Health.
Paus added that the study tied the effects of low test scores to nicotine in cigarettes, which also produce other harmful chemicals and carbon dioxide. Either way, smoking while pregnant seems to put a baby at risk for negative health outcomes.
“We should not be happy with those rates. Smoking during pregnancy is preventable,” Paus said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Georgia cops suspended for cussing out rowdy bus of schoolkids
- White House flops: Obama knew uncle
- FBI: Russian diplomats lied to get U.S. benefits
- Snowy owls travel south
- From prison to presidency, Mandela reformed South Africa, ended apartheid
- ‘Cannibal sandwiches’ of raw ground beef unsafe, CDC reports
- Budget plans remain in jeopardy
- 2 inmates of Gitmo sent home amid fears
- American students’ skills lag on international test
- Sandy Hook 911 calls fuel sensitivity debate