Language Delay Is Not Predictable from Available Risk Factors

Table 1

Univariate analysis. Prevalence of language delay at 30 months in relation to potential risk factors, with Fisher’s exact test 𝑃 values.

	𝑁	𝑁 (%) with language delay	P value
SIMD quintile (26 missing)
Q 1	121	17 (14.0%)	𝑃=0.342
Q 2	42	4 (9.5%)
Q 3	47	4 (8.5%)
Q 4	26	3 (11.5%)
Q 5	53	2 (3.8%)
Attends nursery (2 missing)
No	178	25 (14.0%)	𝑃=0.025
Yes	135	8 (5.9%)
Is there any known problem with drug or alcohol use in the family? (4 missing)
No	294	28 (9.5%)	𝑃=0.233
Yes	17	3 (17.6%)
HPI status at start of visit
Core	200	14 (7.0%)	𝑃=0.012
Additional	84	12 (14.3%)
Intensive	31	7 (22.6%)
Involvement with community paediatrics team
No	313	31 (9.9%)	𝑃=0.011
Yes	2	2 (100.0%)
Social work involvement
No	296	30 (10.1%)	𝑃=0.434
Yes	19	3 (15.8%)
Involvement with other services
No	293	27 (9.2%)	𝑃=0.018
Yes	22	6 (27.3%)
Gender (26 missing)
Female	146	10 (6.8%)	𝑃=0.054
Male	143	20 (14.0%)
Father not at home (2 missing)
No	258	28 (10.9%)	𝑃=0.813
Yes	55	5 (9.1%)
Child's behavioural and developmental problems (7 missing)
No	296	25 (8.4%)	𝑃<0.001
Yes	12	7 (58.3%)
Parental mental illness (10 missing)
No	288	28 (9.7%)	𝑃=0.396
Yes	17	3 (17.6%)
Familial behavioural and developmental problems (9 missing)
No	297	28 (9.4%)	𝑃=0.052
Yes	9	3 (33.3%)
Bilingualism (bilingual family)
No	288	26 (9.0%)	𝑃=0.014
Yes	27	7 (25.9%)