Background: Sponsorship of football teams by detrimental industries may negatively impact fans’ dietary and behavioral choices. The study aimed to determine the proportion of sponsors on the jerseys of teams in the top ten football leagues that comprise companies producing alcohol or unhealthy food, or engaging in gambling. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study, incorporating data from first-division football teams in 10 countries (Argentina, Brazil, England, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United States) playing from 2000–2022. Data were collected on the primary sponsors displayed on team jerseys and categorized into alcohol, unhealthy food (defined as producers of ultra-processed food according to the NOVA classification), gambling, or other, based on the nature of the products or services offered by the sponsors. We performed descriptive statistical analyses and multivariate linear regression analyses. Results: A total of 4452 sponsorship records were analyzed. The majority were classified as “other” (81.8%), followed by gambling (6.9%), alcohol (2.6%), and unhealthy food (2.6%). We did not identify any sponsor representing the tobacco industry. The prevalence of gambling sponsors surged from 1.7% in 2000 to 16.3% in 2022. Conversely, alcohol-related sponsorships dwindled from 6.2% in 2000 to 1.0% in 2022. In the multivariate linear regression model, these trends were statistically significant. The alcohol industry remained visible in the Spanish league. Conclusions: A significant proportion of sponsorships on the jerseys of top football teams across the world represents alcohol, ultra-processed food, or the gambling industry. Trends in the types of sponsors on the jerseys of leading football clubs across the Western world are diverse. Particularly concerning is the recent increase in the percentage of clubs sponsored by the gambling industry. To limit the detrimental effects of the promotion of unhealthy products, novel policies should be considered.

Structured follow-up visits should be accessible for children at risk for developmental delay. Follow-up visits should include a serial neuromotor assessment in the first two years of life (e.g., 3–6, 12, 24 months corrected age), which are repeated during the transition to school. The diagnosis of neuromotor development may be prognostic for important skills later in life. The early diagnosis of a child’s general movements can be helpful in planning appropriately for proper treatment and intervention. These diagnostic assessments should be conducted by qualified healthcare professionals. The evaluation of neuromotor developmental health is specified in the national guidelines and funded by either a national government or public or private healthcare insurance and based on standardized assessment scales. The aim of this study is to show what elements of follow-up visits are recommended. Objectives: The group of patients for whom the structured follow-up systems are intended were children born very preterm (<32 weeks gestation) or full-term born children with severe neonatal complications. Material and methods: The methods for monitoring neurodevelopment include the following: The General Movements Assessment (GMA), the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3), the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development (BSID-4), and the Parent Report of Children’s Abilities-Revised (PARCA-R). Results: The results of follow-up visits should be registered. Conclusions: The benefits of follow-up neuromotor development assessments can be observed at school age and even in adulthood.

Background/Objectives: DDX3X syndrome is often misdiagnosed as autism spectrum disorder (ASD, Rett Syndrome, and Dandy–Walker Syndrome). Precise phenotyping is needed with reference to neurodevelopmental diagnosis. Observation of behavior and communication in parents with DDX3X syndrome in the USA, France, and Poland; conversations with the parents of patients; and rudimentary information in evidence-based medical articles prompted us to identify differences in communication, play, and social interaction between children with ASD only, those with both ASD and DDX3X, and those with DDX3X only. Methods: As diagnostic tool for DDX3X patients, we created a questionnaire divided into four sections: medical, social, play, and communication. Results: The results showed inconsistent diagnoses in different countries where children could have been diagnosed with DDX3X. In a comparative analysis, individuals with DDX3X exhibited greater social skills than individuals with ASD. Furthermore, those with DDX3X demonstrated higher levels of social functioning compared to children with ASD. Therefore, parents of children recently diagnosed with ASD or similar conditions are encouraged to complete a survey to determine if their child is likely to have features of DDX3X syndrome. Conclusion: Identification of early behavioral markers that differentiate children with ASD and those with DDX3X could lead to the earliest opportunity for identification and intervention, and can significantly impact developmental trajectories, leading to better long-term outcomes.