Williams Syndrome in Children: What This Diagnosis Means for Families

The news of a Williams syndrome diagnosis almost always arrives with countless questions and an unfamiliar terrain. It is a rare genetic condition that most parents have never encountered before hearing its name in a doctor's office, making the initial weeks after diagnosis uniquely demanding.

This article brings together scientifically validated information about Williams syndrome in clear, accessible language: from its genetic basis to clinical manifestations, diagnosis, recommended medical evaluations, and early intervention approaches that make a meaningful difference in a child's development. It is not intended as a self-diagnosis or treatment manual — every child requires individualized evaluation by a specialized medical team — but as an informed starting point for understanding what medical science knows today about this condition.

What is Williams syndrome?

Williams syndrome was first recognized as a distinct clinical entity over six decades ago (Williams et al., 1961). Today we understand that this condition, also referred to as Williams-Beuren syndrome, is caused by the microdeletion of a small segment on chromosome 7, typically encompassing 25 to 27 contiguous genes in the 7q11.23 region.

In the vast majority of cases, this microdeletion occurs spontaneously (de novo), without either parent carrying the genetic alteration. An individual with Williams syndrome has a 50% probability of passing the deletion to their children in each pregnancy (Pérez Jurado et al., 1996). The underlying biological mechanism has also been elucidated: the deletion results from non-allelic homologous recombination between highly similar DNA segments flanking the critical region during gamete formation (Bayés et al., 2003).

How common is Williams syndrome?

Williams syndrome is classified as a rare disorder. The most widely cited epidemiological estimate stems from a Norwegian population-based study that established a prevalence of approximately 1 in 7,500 live births (Strømme et al., 2002).

Overall, the condition occurs with equal frequency in girls and boys, though clinical data indicate that boys present on average with more severe cardiovascular involvement (Sadler et al., 2001). The average age at diagnosis has dropped steadily over recent decades, largely due to broader access to molecular genetic testing. However, in regions with more constrained healthcare resources, where multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) is often the only affordable testing method, diagnosis is still frequently delayed until later in childhood (Honjo et al., 2015).

How does Williams syndrome manifest?

Williams syndrome affects multiple body systems simultaneously, and clinical manifestations vary substantially between children in both quantity and intensity:

• Development and milestones. Developmental delays are virtually universal: children with Williams syndrome attain motor, speech, and language milestones later on average than neurotypical peers (Morris et al., 1988). Importantly, developmental trajectories differ significantly across individuals.
• Cognitive profile. Approximately three-quarters of individuals with Williams syndrome have mild to moderate intellectual disability, while the remainder score in the borderline or, less frequently, average cognitive range. What distinguishes Williams syndrome from other neurodevelopmental conditions is the pronounced unevenness of its cognitive architecture: verbal short-term memory and spoken vocabulary are relative strengths, whereas visuospatial constructive ability (such as drawing, handwriting, or block design) is disproportionately impaired relative to overall cognitive functioning (Mervis et al., 2000).
• Language and communication. Expressive vocabulary is often a notable relative asset. However, more complex linguistic domains — including spatial, temporal, and quantitative concepts, figurative language, and pragmatic conversational coherence — frequently lag behind expectations (Mervis, 2009). Children may speak with remarkable verbal fluency and rich vocabulary, yet struggle when discussions become abstract or require following extended narrative threads.
• Behavior and socialization. One of the hallmark characteristics of Williams syndrome is heightened sociability and an uninhibited, friendly approach toward unfamiliar individuals. However, spontaneous friendliness does not automatically translate into lasting peer friendships: studies of adults with Williams syndrome document high rates of loneliness and substantial difficulties establishing and sustaining quality relationships despite strong social motivation (Fisher et al., 2020). A study of children aged 7 to 16, incorporating both parent and teacher assessments, showed that children with Williams syndrome encounter greater peer challenges, including social exclusion, even while rarely experiencing peer conflict or active bullying (Gillooly et al., 2021).
• Anxiety and emotional patterns. Despite the common stereotype that children with Williams syndrome are universally cheerful, anxiety disorders — particularly specific phobias — represent the most frequent psychiatric concern reported in children and adolescents (Leyfer et al., 2006). Auditory hypersensitivity (hyperacusis), which can trigger profound discomfort in noisy or crowded settings, is also extensively documented, with variable severity across individuals (Levitin et al., 2005).
• Motor function. Reduced trunk tone (axial hypotonia) is common in infancy and early childhood, often accompanied by brisk lower-limb reflexes; cerebellar signs such as mild ataxia or tremors may become more discernible over time (Chapman et al., 1996).
• Feeding difficulties. Feeding issues frequently emerge in the first years of life: in an infant and toddler cohort, more than half of parents reported significant feeding difficulties, commonly co-occurring with sleep disturbances (Kirchner et al., 2016).
• Growth. Children with Williams syndrome typically experience slower postnatal growth rates, which led to the creation of syndrome-specific growth charts to accurately assess physical development (Martin et al., 2007).
• Facial characteristics. The characteristic facial features — broad forehead, periorbital fullness, short nose with a bulbous tip, wide mouth with full lips — have been documented across diverse ethnic populations, demonstrating consistent expression across backgrounds (Kruszka et al., 2018).
• Cardiovascular conditions. A significant majority of individuals have structural vascular abnormalities, most commonly supravalvular aortic stenosis (SVAS), a narrowing of the ascending aorta above the aortic valve (Collins, 2013). These findings necessitate ongoing, lifelong pediatric cardiology surveillance.
• Endocrine and metabolic considerations. Idiopathic hypercalcemia (elevated serum calcium levels) frequently presents in the first two years of life and can manifest through marked irritability, vomiting, or persistent constipation (Sindhar et al., 2016). Precocious puberty occurs more frequently in girls than in the general population (Partsch et al., 2002), and adults carry an elevated risk of prediabetes and type 2 diabetes mellitus (Pober et al., 2010).
• Renal and urological conditions. Urinary tract anomalies and bladder diverticula occur at higher rates than in typical populations (Pankau et al., 1996), and daytime and nocturnal bladder continence is often achieved later in childhood (von Gontard et al., 2016).
• Musculoskeletal and connective tissue considerations. Joint laxity common during early childhood often transitions over time into joint contractures, particularly in the lower limbs, which can restrict mobility; daily therapeutic stretching exercises are routinely recommended (Kaplan et al., 1989).
• Dental features. Small, widely spaced teeth (microdontia) and enamel hypoplasia are common, alongside malocclusions that generally respond well to orthodontic interventions (Hertzberg et al., 1994).
• Additional features. Mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss occurs in many children and most adults with Williams syndrome (Marler et al., 2010). Sleep disturbances, including sleep-onset latency and frequent night wakings, are likewise prevalent (Mason et al., 2011).

Cognitive profile and neurodevelopment

Individualized assessment through comprehensive psychoeducational evaluation is critical. The resulting insights must be communicated clearly to educators to design an educational plan tailored to the child's distinct strengths and vulnerabilities (Van Herwegen et al., 2018). In young children with limited expressive language, behavioral features may overlap with autism spectrum characteristics, and some individuals meet criteria for a dual diagnosis (Richards et al., 2015).

Regarding social dynamics, diminished stranger anxiety and reduced awareness of stranger danger can place children and adults with Williams syndrome in vulnerable situations, underscoring the necessity of structured personal safety education programs (Riby et al., 2014).

Anxiety, particularly specific phobias, represents the most common emotional hurdle, and therapeutic strategies remain an active area of investigation. A recent clinical study examining exposure therapy sessions infused with play and humor reported encouraging behavioral improvements in addressing child fears (Young et al., 2023). Another investigation in adults evaluated mobile-assisted cognitive behavioral therapy paired with daily anxiety monitoring to make therapeutic tools accessible to individuals with intellectual disabilities (Lehman et al., 2023). While these studies involve small cohorts, researchers emphasize the value of structured behavioral support.

Cardiovascular considerations

Cardiovascular disease represents, alongside neurodevelopment, the most critical domain of ongoing clinical surveillance in Williams syndrome. Longitudinal tracking shows that vascular stenoses can progress over time, particularly when evident in early infancy, with some children requiring surgical intervention (Collins et al., 2010). Systemic arterial hypertension is also common across all age groups and frequently warrants pharmacological treatment alongside blood pressure monitoring in both arms (Bouchireb et al., 2010).

Parents should be aware that procedural sedation and general anesthesia carry higher cardiovascular risks in individuals with Williams syndrome. Rare instances of sudden cardiac events documented in medical literature frequently arise in perioperative or sedation settings. Clinical guidelines strongly recommend that all surgical or sedated procedures be planned in close collaboration with an anesthesia team experienced in the specific hemodynamics of Williams syndrome (Wessel et al., 2004). Rather than causing alarm, this guidance underscores the importance of thorough, coordinated medical planning and ongoing communication with a pediatric cardiologist.

How is the diagnosis established?

When suspected based on clinical features, diagnosis must always be confirmed through genetic testing (such as chromosomal microarray or FISH/MLPA). Genetic confirmation, discussion of recurrence risks for future pregnancies, and family counseling are directed by a clinical geneticist.

What evaluations are essential after diagnosis?

Following confirmation, established clinical guidelines recommend comprehensive baseline evaluations and structured developmental surveillance tailored to the child's age across multidisciplinary specialties (Morris & Braddock, 2020):

• Pediatric cardiology — echocardiographic evaluation, four-limb blood pressure measurements, and electrocardiography, with frequent initial and regular ongoing follow-ups;
• Medical genetics — diagnostic confirmation, counseling regarding natural history, and recurrence risk assessment;
• Developmental pediatrics — enrollment in early intervention programs;
• Neuropsychology / psychology — profiling cognitive and behavioral patterns to guide educational accommodations;
• Speech and language therapy — supporting expressive language, comprehension, and pragmatic communication;
• Physical therapy (physiotherapy) — enhancing muscle tone, gross motor development, and joint range of motion;
• Occupational therapy — fine motor coordination, sensory processing, and daily life skills;
• Endocrinology — monitoring serum calcium levels, thyroid function, and metabolic parameters;
• Nephrology / urology — evaluating urinary tract anatomy and managing recurrent infections or incontinence;
• Ophthalmology — screening for strabismus, refractive errors, and visual processing needs;
• Pediatric dentistry — regular dental oversight given increased susceptibility to caries and malocclusion.

Each evaluation operates on a recommended schedule corresponding to the child's age, coordinated through the primary pediatrician or care manager.

Early intervention and therapies

Early intervention — speech therapy, physical therapy, and occupational therapy started as early as possible — is universally recommended as the cornerstone of care, paired with teaching methods attuned to the child's learning profile (Mervis & John, 2010). While therapies do not eliminate genetic alterations or intellectual disability, they significantly optimize developmental potential, communication abilities, and daily living autonomy.

A concrete, well-documented educational adaptation relates to literacy: systematic synthetic phonics instruction (letter-sound correspondence) has been shown to produce significantly better reading and reading comprehension outcomes in children with Williams syndrome compared to whole-word approaches (Brawn et al., 2018). Concurrently, behavioral and psychological support for anxiety is as vital as academic and motor guidance.

Interdisciplinary collaboration connecting the pediatrician, cardiologist, geneticist, therapists, and psychologists is what binds these interventions into an individualized, cohesive roadmap tailored to the child.

How to support the child at home and at school

Practical, evidence-grounded principles offer valuable guidance for daily life. Because children with Williams syndrome approach unfamiliar people with ease, structured stranger safety programs provide crucial protection and can be progressively adapted as the child matures (Fisher, 2014). Guided social skills training in small groups helps address the risks of peer isolation identified in long-term research (Fisher & Morin, 2017).

In school environments, educating teachers and staff regarding the child's specific cognitive profile is essential. Studies of educational provision for neurogenetic conditions reveal that many teachers feel unprepared without specific condition knowledge, and direct communication from families and clinical specialists bridges this gap effectively (Reilly et al., 2015). Simple classroom adaptations — additional processing time, visual supports, and quiet structured breaks to manage auditory sensitivities — significantly improve comfort and academic engagement.

Long-term outcomes and everyday life

Developmental trajectories vary widely depending on the child's individual cognitive profile, medical complexity, and available support systems. Longitudinal studies following adolescents and adults over time demonstrate that intellectual and adaptive skills remain relatively stable, though the rate of skill acquisition may decelerate with age (Fisher et al., 2016).

In adulthood, most individuals continue living with family or in supported community environments, and complete independence remains a partial milestone for many. Nevertheless, extensive family surveys show that a meaningful proportion of adults with Williams syndrome maintain employment, often within supported work environments (Howlin & Udwin, 2006). Many adults lead fulfilling lives, engaging in community activities and maintaining close relationships.

Maintaining realistic, hopeful expectations is vital: sustained early intervention, a supportive home environment, and continuous access to adapted medical and educational services contribute tangibly to long-term quality of life.

Why a multidisciplinary approach matters

Because Williams syndrome involves cardiovascular, endocrine, renal, dental, motor, cognitive, and emotional dimensions simultaneously, care managed through a single specialty is almost always insufficient. A coordinated center or clinical network brings specialists together, streamlines appointments, fosters interdisciplinary dialogue, and provides families with a central anchor rather than a fragmented journey across disparate offices.

When to seek specialist evaluation

Key signs that warrant clinical consultation include: noticeable delays in motor or speech milestones, persistent feeding difficulties or slow infant weight gain, a heart murmur detected during routine pediatric examination, episodes of extreme infant irritability accompanied by vomiting or constipation, or characteristic facial features that stand out within the family. While none of these signs alone proves a Williams syndrome diagnosis, their presence justifies a medical discussion to determine whether genetic evaluation is warranted. Timely diagnosis unlocks early access to intervention programs with proven benefits for child development.

Conclusion

Williams syndrome is a rare, complex genetic condition that affects multiple physiological systems and expresses itself uniquely in every child. Beyond medical considerations and characteristic cognitive strengths in verbal domains alongside visuospatial challenges, every child with Williams syndrome remains first and foremost an individual with their own personality, passions, and developmental pace.

Current clinical research offers solid guideposts for care and monitoring, yet no general overview replaces an individualized assessment by a dedicated clinical team who knows both the syndrome and the child. With consistent medical follow-up, early intervention, and an empathetic circle of family, school, and community support, children with Williams syndrome can cultivate their abilities and lead rich, fulfilling lives at their own rhythm.

References

• Bayés, M., Magano, L. F., Rivera, N., Flores, R., & Pérez Jurado, L. A. (2003). Mutational mechanisms of Williams-Beuren syndrome deletions. American Journal of Human Genetics, 73(1), 131–151. https://doi.org/10.1086/376565
• Bouchireb, K., Boyer, O., Bonnet, D., et al. (2010). Clinical features and management of arterial hypertension in children with Williams-Beuren syndrome. Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, 25(2), 434–438.
• Brawn, G., Kohnen, S., Tassabehji, M., & Porter, M. (2018). Functional basic reading skills in Williams syndrome. Developmental Neuropsychology, 43(6), 454–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/87565641.2018.1455838
• Chapman, C. A., du Plessis, A., & Pober, B. R. (1996). Neurologic findings in children and adults with Williams syndrome. Journal of Child Neurology, 11(1), 63–65.
• Collins, R. T., II. (2013). Cardiovascular disease in Williams syndrome. Circulation, 127(21), 2125–2134. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.000064
• Collins, R. T., II, Kaplan, P., Somes, G. W., & Rome, J. J. (2010). Long-term outcomes of patients with cardiovascular abnormalities and Williams syndrome. American Journal of Cardiology, 105(6), 874–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.10.069
• Fisher, M. H. (2014). Evaluation of a stranger safety training programme for adults with Williams syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 58(10), 903–914. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12055
• Fisher, M. H., Josol, C. K., & Shivers, C. M. (2020). An examination of social skills, friendship quality, and loneliness for adults with Williams syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 50(10), 3649–3660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04416-4
• Fisher, M. H., Lense, M. D., & Dykens, E. M. (2016). Longitudinal trajectories of intellectual and adaptive functioning in adolescents and adults with Williams syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 60(10), 920–932. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12303
• Fisher, M. H., & Morin, L. (2017). Addressing social skills deficits in adults with Williams syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 71, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.10.008
• Gillooly, A. E., Riby, D. M., Durkin, K., & Rhodes, S. M. (2021). Peer relationships in children with Williams syndrome: Parent and teacher insights. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(1), 169–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-020-04503-6
• Hertzberg, J., Nakisbendi, L., Needleman, H. L., & Pober, B. (1994). Williams syndrome–oral presentation of 45 cases. Pediatric Dentistry, 16(4), 262–267.
• Honjo, R. S., et al. (2015). Williams-Beuren syndrome: A clinical study of 55 Brazilian patients and the diagnostic use of MLPA. BioMed Research International, 2015, Article 903175. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/903175
• Howlin, P., & Udwin, O. (2006). Outcome in adult life for people with Williams syndrome: Results from a survey of 239 families. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50(2), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2006.00775.x
• Kaplan, P., Kirschner, M., Watters, G., & Costa, M. T. (1989). Contractures in patients with Williams syndrome. Pediatrics, 84(5), 895–899.
• Kirchner, R. M., Martens, M. A., & Andridge, R. R. (2016). Adaptive behavior and development of infants and toddlers with Williams syndrome. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 598. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00598
• Kruszka, P., et al. (2018). Williams-Beuren syndrome in diverse populations. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 176(5), 1128–1136. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.a.38672
• Lehman, N., Trouillet, R., & Genevieve, D. (2023). Evaluation of the effectiveness of therapy for anxiety in Williams-Beuren syndrome using a smartphone app: Protocol for a single-case experiment. JMIR Research Protocols, 12, Article e44393. https://doi.org/10.2196/44393
• Leyfer, O. T., Woodruff-Borden, J., Klein-Tasman, B. P., Fricke, J. S., & Mervis, C. B. (2006). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in 4 to 16-year-olds with Williams syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 141B(6), 615–622.
• Levitin, D. J., Cole, K., Lincoln, A., & Bellugi, U. (2005). Aversion, awareness, and attraction: Investigating claims of hyperacusis in the Williams syndrome phenotype. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(5), 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00376.x
• Marler, J. A., Sitcovsky, J. L., Mervis, C. B., Kistler, D. J., & Wightman, F. L. (2010). Auditory function and hearing loss in children and adults with Williams syndrome: Cochlear impairment in individuals with otherwise normal hearing. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics, 154C(2), 249–265.
• Martin, N. D., Smith, W. R., Cole, T. J., & Preece, M. A. (2007). New height, weight and head circumference charts for British children with Williams syndrome. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 92(7), 598–601. https://doi.org/10.1136/adc.2006.107946
• Mason, T. B., Arens, R., Sharman, J., et al. (2011). Sleep in children with Williams syndrome. Sleep Medicine, 12(9), 892–897.
• Mervis, C. B. (2009). Language and literacy development of children with Williams syndrome. Topics in Language Disorders, 29(2), 149–169. https://doi.org/10.1097/TLD.0b013e3181a72044
• Mervis, C. B., & John, A. E. (2010). Cognitive and behavioral characteristics of children with Williams syndrome: Implications for intervention approaches. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics, 154C(2), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.c.30263
• Mervis, C. B., Robinson, B. F., Bertrand, J., Morris, C. A., Klein-Tasman, B. P., & Armstrong, S. C. (2000). The Williams syndrome cognitive profile. Brain and Cognition, 44(3), 604–628.
• Morris, C. A., Demsey, S. A., Leonard, C. O., Dilts, C., & Blackburn, B. L. (1988). Natural history of Williams syndrome: Physical characteristics. Journal of Pediatrics, 113(2), 318–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3476%2888%2980272-5
• Morris, C. A., & Braddock, S. R., AAP Council on Genetics. (2020). Health care supervision for children with Williams syndrome. Pediatrics, 145(2), Article e20193761. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-3761
• Pankau, R., Partsch, C. J., Winter, M., Gosch, A., & Wessel, A. (1996). Incidence and spectrum of renal abnormalities in Williams-Beuren syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 63(1), 301–304.
• Partsch, C. J., Japing, I., Siebert, R., et al. (2002). Central precocious puberty in girls with Williams syndrome. Journal of Pediatrics, 141(3), 441–444.
• Pérez Jurado, L. A., Peoples, R., Kaplan, P., Hamel, B. C., & Francke, U. (1996). Molecular definition of the chromosome 7 deletion in Williams syndrome and parent-of-origin effects on growth. American Journal of Human Genetics, 59(4), 781–792.
• Pober, B. R., Wang, E., Caprio, S., et al. (2010). High prevalence of diabetes and pre-diabetes in adults with Williams syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part C: Seminars in Medical Genetics, 154C(2), 291–298.
• Reilly, C., Senior, J., & Murtagh, L. (2015). A comparative study of educational provision for children with neurogenetic syndromes: Parent and teacher survey. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 59(12), 1094–1107. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12210
• Riby, D. M., Kirk, H., Hanley, M., & Riby, L. M. (2014). Stranger danger awareness in Williams syndrome. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 58(6), 572–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12055
• Richards, C., Jones, C., Groves, L., Moss, J., & Oliver, C. (2015). Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder phenomenology in genetic disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry, 2(10), 909–916. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366%2815%2900376-4
• Sadler, L. S., et al. (2001). Differences by sex in cardiovascular disease in Williams syndrome. Journal of Pediatrics, 139(6), 849–853. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpd.2001.118889
• Sindhar, S., Lugo, M., Levin, M. D., et al. (2016). Hypercalcemia in patients with Williams-Beuren syndrome. Journal of Pediatrics, 178, 254–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.08.027
• Strømme, P., Bjørnstad, P. G., & Ramstad, K. (2002). Prevalence estimation of Williams syndrome. Journal of Child Neurology, 17(4), 269–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/088307380201700406
• Van Herwegen, J., Ashworth, M., & Palikara, O. (2018). Parental views on special educational needs provision: Cross-syndrome comparisons in Williams syndrome, Down syndrome, and autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 80, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.06.014
• von Gontard, A., Niemczyk, J., Borggrefe-Moussavian, S., Wagner, C., Curfs, L., & Equit, M. (2016). Incontinence in children, adolescents and adults with Williams syndrome. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 35(8), 1000–1005.
• Wessel, A., Gravenhorst, V., Buchhorn, R., Gosch, A., Partsch, C. J., & Pankau, R. (2004). Risk of sudden death in the Williams-Beuren syndrome. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A, 127A(3), 234–237.
• Williams, J. C., Barratt-Boyes, B. G., & Lowe, J. B. (1961). Supravalvular aortic stenosis. Circulation, 24, 1311–1318. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.24.6.1311
• Young, B. N., Mohanty, E., Levine, K., & Klein-Tasman, B. P. (2023). Addressing fears of children with Williams syndrome: Therapist and child behavior in the context of a novel play- and humor-infused exposure therapy approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1098449. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1098449