About one in four children with cerebral palsy has no functional speech: 24.5% of the 10,228 children with pre/perinatally acquired CP on the Australian Cerebral Palsy Register were non-verbal at age 5 (Australian Cerebral Palsy Register, ACPR Report 2023). A further 38.2% had some speech impairment, and in a registry-identified sample of 84 five-year-olds, 82% had delayed or disordered speech, with dysarthria in 78% of the children who could talk (Mei et al., Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2020). Even when speech develops, it tends to plateau below typical levels: modelled connected-speech intelligibility at age 8 is 63% for children with both speech motor and language comprehension impairment, against 92% for children with CP and no speech motor involvement (Mahr, Rathouz and Hustad, JSLHR 2020). We aggregated data from the Australian Cerebral Palsy Register, the CDC Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network, Surveillance of Cerebral Palsy in Europe (SCPE), the University of Wisconsin-Madison longitudinal speech cohort, Cochrane, ASHA, the SPARCLE young-adult study and more than a dozen other peer-reviewed sources. For the device side of the story, our AAC tablet app statistics cover the wider augmentative communication ecosystem.
TL;DR
- 24.5% of children with pre/perinatally acquired CP were non-verbal at age 5 (ACPR Report 2023).
- 1 in 4 children with cerebral palsy could not talk (Novak et al., Pediatrics 2012).
- 82% of 5-year-olds with CP had delayed or disordered speech, and 78% of verbal children had dysarthria (Mei et al., DMCN 2020).
- CP birth prevalence is 1.6 per 1,000 live births in high-income countries and up to 3.4 per 1,000 in low- and middle-income countries (McIntyre et al., DMCN 2022).
- In 2022, about 2.4 per 1,000 US 8-year-olds had CP (CDC ADDM Network, Patrick et al., Pediatrics Open Science 2026).
- Modelled intelligibility at age 8 ranges from 92% to 63% depending on speech and language profile (Mahr et al., JSLHR 2020).
- The probability of Viking Speech Scale level IV (no understandable speech) fell from 0.57 at age 4 to 0.30 at age 10 (Long et al., DMCN 2022).
- 43% of children changed Viking level between ages 4 and 14, and every one of them improved (Jensen and Hustad, DMCN 2026).
- Only 11 of 35 Norwegian preschoolers who needed AAC had been provided a communication aid (Lillehaug et al., AAC 2023).
- A Cochrane review found zero randomised trials of therapy for dysarthria acquired before age 3 (Pennington et al., Cochrane 2016).
- 49.0% of young adults with CP who needed speech therapy reported an unmet need (Rioual et al., Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences 2024).
1. How Common Cerebral Palsy Is in 2026
Cerebral palsy is getting rarer in wealthy countries, and the drop is now large enough to show up in national registers. Australia’s all-CP birth prevalence fell from 2.4 per 1,000 live births in 1997-1998 to a provisional 1.3 per 1,000 in 2017-2018 (Australian Cerebral Palsy Register, 2025 Bulletin). The bulletin covers 11,699 children, and term births still account for 58% of pre/perinatally acquired CP, so prevention gains in preterm care do not eliminate the caseload.
The global picture is uneven. Low- and middle-income countries report pre/perinatal CP rates up to 3.4 per 1,000, more than twice the 1.5 per 1,000 seen in high-income countries (McIntyre et al., Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 2022), and those are the settings where speech and AAC services are typically thinnest. In the US, the CDC re-established CP surveillance in 2023, and the first new estimates come in at about 2.4 per 1,000 8-year-olds, with a persistent racial gap (Vanderbilt Health News, reporting Patrick et al., Pediatrics Open Science 2026).
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Birth prevalence, all CP, high-income countries | 1.6 per 1,000 live births (95% CI 1.5-1.7) | McIntyre et al., DMCN 2022 |
| Pre/perinatal CP, high-income countries (birth year 2010) | 1.5 per 1,000 (95% CI 1.4-1.6) | McIntyre et al., DMCN 2022 |
| Pre/perinatal CP, low- and middle-income countries | Up to 3.4 per 1,000 (95% CI 3.0-3.9) | McIntyre et al., DMCN 2022 |
| Australia, all CP, 1997-1998 vs 2017-2018 (provisional) | 2.4 vs 1.3 per 1,000 live births | ACPR 2025 Bulletin |
| US prevalence, 8-year-olds, 2022 | About 2.4 per 1,000 | CDC ADDM Network, Patrick et al., Pediatrics Open Science 2026 |
| US prevalence, 4-year-olds, 2022 | About 2.2 per 1,000 | CDC ADDM Network, Patrick et al., Pediatrics Open Science 2026 |
| US 8-year-olds, Black vs white children | 3.3 vs 2.2 per 1,000 | CDC ADDM Network, Patrick et al., Pediatrics Open Science 2026 |
| Europe (SCPE), overall CP, 1980 to 2003 birth cohorts | 1.90 to 1.77 per 1,000 live births | Sellier et al. (SCPE), DMCN 2016 |
Context: the older US benchmark was about 1 in 345 children (3 per 1,000 8-year-olds) in 2010, when 82.9% had spastic CP (CDC, Data and Statistics for Cerebral Palsy). The 2022 ADDM data, drawn from records of more than 214,000 children in Georgia, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee and Utah, put spastic CP at more than 72% and independent walking at nearly 58%; children born in 2018 had a 20% higher cumulative incidence of diagnosis by 48 months than those born in 2014. For speech services, an earlier diagnosis is the precondition for an earlier referral. Most recent available data for global prevalence: McIntyre et al., 2022.
2. How Many Children With CP Have Speech Impairment, and What Kind
Speech is one of the most common impairments in CP, not a side issue. On the largest dataset available, only 37.4% of children with pre/perinatally acquired CP had no speech impairment at age 5 (Australian Cerebral Palsy Register, ACPR Report 2023). Post-neonatally acquired CP (after infection, stroke or head injury) looks worse, with 33.5% non-verbal.
Clinical samples that assess every child directly report higher rates than the register’s functional categories. The type of disorder matters as much as its presence: among verbal 5-year-olds, dysarthria dominated, but 54% had articulation delay or disorder, 43% phonological delay or disorder and 17% had features of childhood apraxia of speech, often mixed in the same child (Mei et al., DMCN 2020). That overlap is why a single label rarely fits; our childhood apraxia of speech statistics cover the planning-disorder side separately.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Non-verbal at age 5, pre/perinatal CP | 24.5% (2,125 children) | ACPR Report 2023 |
| Some speech impairment at age 5 | 38.2% (3,310 children) | ACPR Report 2023 |
| Non-verbal at age 5, post-neonatally acquired CP | 33.5% (173 children) | ACPR Report 2023 |
| Children with CP who could not talk (systematic review) | 1 in 4 | Novak et al., Pediatrics 2012 |
| Speech disorder vs non-verbal, western Sweden (n=129) | 21% vs 32% | Nordberg et al., Acta Paediatrica 2013 |
| Delayed or disordered speech at about age 5 (n=84) | 82% (69/84) | Mei et al., DMCN 2020 |
| Dysarthria among verbal children (n=64) | 78% | Mei et al., DMCN 2020 |
| Motor speech impairment, Victorian register sample (n=79) | 90% (71/79) | Mei et al., Int J Speech-Language Pathology 2014 |
Context: the Swedish cohort’s headline is that speech problems affect more than one in two children with CP once non-verbal children are counted (21% plus 32%), and 41% of the children with speech disorders also had intellectual disability (Nordberg et al., Acta Paediatrica 2013). The same review that found 1 in 4 children could not talk also reported that 1 in 2 had an intellectual disability (Novak et al., Pediatrics 2012). By subtype, hypotonic CP had the highest speech impairment prevalence on the Australian register, at 95% (Delacy and Reid, DMCN 2016). In the same registry sample of 84 five-year-olds, speech delay or disorder was associated with language impairment (p=0.002) and reduced health-related quality of life (p=0.04). Most recent available data on subtype mix: Mei et al., 2020; Nordberg et al., 2013.
3. Speech Severity by GMFCS and Viking Speech Scale Level
The Viking Speech Scale (VSS) gives registers a four-level speech rating, from level I (speech not affected by the motor disorder) to level IV (no understandable speech). Motor severity and speech severity move together, but the fit is loose enough that GMFCS cannot stand in for a speech assessment. In a cohort of 4-year-olds, 6 of 8 children at GMFCS level V had no functional speech, against 0 of 3 at level I (Hustad et al., JSLHR 2010), yet one child classified at GMFCS level II also had no functional speech.
The more encouraging finding is direction of travel. Over childhood, speech classifications shift more than motor classifications, and nearly all the movement is toward better speech (Long et al., DMCN 2022; Jensen and Hustad, DMCN 2026, author manuscript). A level IV rating at age 4 is a starting point, not a verdict.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| No functional speech at age 4, GMFCS V vs GMFCS I | 6 of 8 vs 0 of 3 children | Hustad et al., JSLHR 2010 |
| Correlation of VSS and GMFCS, age 4 vs age 14 | r = 0.767 vs r = 0.856 | Jensen and Hustad, DMCN 2026 |
| Probability of VSS level IV / level I, age 4 vs age 10 | 0.57 vs 0.30 / 0.04 vs 0.26 | Long et al., DMCN 2022 |
| Age-to-age transitions: improved vs worsened vs unchanged (of 227) | 65 vs 10 vs 152 | Long et al., DMCN 2022 |
| Children changing level, age 4 to 14: VSS vs GMFCS | 43% (19/44) vs 34% (15/44) | Jensen and Hustad, DMCN 2026 |
| Consonants produced at age 2 predicting VSS level at age 5 | R2 = 0.50 | Pennington et al., DMCN 2020 |
Context: the age effect in the 4-to-10 cohort was an odds ratio of 5.7 (95% CI 3.2-11.6) per 2-year increase in age, and the authors note that children did not show worsening of VSS level between 4 and 10. Only 14% (6/44) of children in the 4-to-14 cohort changed GMFCS and VSS level at the same time, which is why the two scales need tracking separately. Early speech is predictive too: consonant inventory at age 2 also predicted Communication Function Classification System level at age 5 (R2 = 0.54) (Pennington et al., DMCN 2020). Most recent available data on functional speech by GMFCS level: Hustad et al., 2010.
4. Intelligibility Growth From Toddlerhood to Age 8
Intelligibility, the share of words an unfamiliar adult listener understands, is the outcome families notice. The Wisconsin longitudinal cohort shows that profile matters more than diagnosis: by age 8, modelled connected-speech intelligibility is 92% for children with CP and no speech motor impairment, 82% with speech motor impairment and typical comprehension, and 63% when comprehension is also impaired (Mahr, Rathouz and Hustad, JSLHR 2020).
Children with speech motor impairment do not just start lower, they peak later and slower. Their steepest growth arrives more than a year after children without motor involvement, and single-word ceilings sit far below typical speakers (Hustad et al., JSLHR 2020). The practical implication: the window for watching and waiting is shorter than the growth curve suggests, because intelligibility at 3 years was highly predictive of later outcomes regardless of group.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Modelled intelligibility at age 8: no speech motor impairment (NSMI) / speech motor impairment with typical comprehension (SMI-LCT) / with comprehension impairment (SMI-LCI) | 92% [88, 95] / 82% [72, 89] / 63% [43, 81] | Mahr et al., JSLHR 2020 |
| Age of steepest intelligibility growth, NSMI vs SMI-LCT | 39 vs 54 months | Mahr et al., JSLHR 2020 |
| Single-word intelligibility ceiling: NSMI / SMI-LCT / SMI-LCI | 82.0% / 60.8% / 42.4% | Hustad et al., JSLHR 2020 |
| SMI-LCI children who never crossed 25% single-word intelligibility by 100 months | 29% | Hustad et al., JSLHR 2020 |
| 5-year-olds reaching 87% intelligibility (typical 10th percentile): NSMI vs SMI | 32% vs 4% | Hustad et al., AJSLP 2019 |
| Typical benchmark: age by which children should be at least 50% intelligible | 48 months | Hustad et al., JSLHR 2021 |
Context: the connected-speech cohort followed 65 children at 6-month intervals. Multiword intelligibility at 8 ran about 20 points above single-word intelligibility for the speech motor groups, which is why the two tables of ceilings differ. In the single-word study, 13% of SMI-LCT children also never crossed 25%, and 36-month intelligibility alone explained most of the variance in 96-month outcomes (adjusted R2 = .78). In the 5-year-old sample, no child was 100% intelligible and 90% of children with speech motor impairment were below 72% (Hustad et al., AJSLP 2019). Typical children reach 50% single-word intelligibility between 31 and 47 months (Hustad et al., JSLHR 2021). Most recent available data: Hustad lab cohorts published 2019 to 2021.
5. AAC Need vs AAC Access
The gap in CP communication is less about technology than about who receives it. In a Norwegian sample of 95 preschoolers with CP, 35 children needed AAC but only 11 of them (31.4%) had been provided with a communication aid (Lillehaug, Klevberg and Stadskleiv, Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2023). Children with epilepsy or more limited hand function were the most likely to have received an intervention, which suggests provision tracks visible severity rather than speech need alone.
The Canadian picture is similar: despite what the authors describe as high rates of need and access, only 38% of children with CP who require AAC used AAC systems (Coan-Brill et al., AJSLP 2025). Sensory impairments complicate access as well: in the Novak systematic review, 1 in 10 children with CP were blind and 1 in 25 were deaf, which narrows the options for eye-gaze and symbol-based systems.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Norwegian preschoolers needing AAC / of those, provided with a communication aid | 35 of 95 (36.8%, calculated as 35/95) / 11 of 35 (31.4%) | Lillehaug et al., AAC 2023 |
| All children in the sample with a communication aid | 14 of 95 | Lillehaug et al., AAC 2023 |
| Odds of AAC intervention: MACS level III-V / epilepsy | OR = 3.4, p = .02 / OR = 8.9, p < .01 | Lillehaug et al., AAC 2023 |
| Canadian children with CP requiring AAC who used AAC systems (survey, N = 60) | 38% | Coan-Brill et al., AJSLP 2025 |
| Children with CP who were blind / deaf | 1 in 10 / 1 in 25 | Novak et al., Pediatrics 2012 |
Context: the Norwegian definition of AAC need combined Communication Function Classification System criteria with Viking Speech Scale levels III-IV. Parents of children who had a communication aid reported satisfaction with it and frequent use, so the shortfall is in provision rather than acceptance. The Coan-Brill figure comes from 60 caregivers and clinicians and is not a population estimate. Most recent available population-linked data: Lillehaug et al., 2023.
6. What Therapy Outcomes Show
Therapy for dysarthria in CP is common, but the trial evidence behind it is thin. A Cochrane review found no randomised controlled trials or group studies of speech therapy for dysarthria acquired before age 3 (Pennington et al., Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016). The most recent systematic review screened 1,036 articles and kept 21, describing eight motor speech interventions in 131 participants aged 3-18 (Korkalainen et al., JSLHR 2023).
The signal that exists is positive. All eight interventions reported word-level intelligibility gains, and the three with reported effect sizes landed in the large range (ASHA Evidence Maps, summary of Korkalainen et al. 2023). The problem is scale: most studies are small, and only one intervention showed a change in everyday communication participation. Workforce limits compound this, as our speech-language pathologist workforce statistics show.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| RCTs or group studies found, therapy for dysarthria acquired before age 3 | 0 | Pennington et al., Cochrane 2016 |
| Articles screened vs included, motor speech interventions in CP | 1,036 vs 21 | Korkalainen et al., JSLHR 2023 |
| Interventions and participants in that review | 8 interventions, 131 participants aged 3-18 | Korkalainen et al., JSLHR 2023 |
| Effect sizes reported (IDT, PROMPT, mSIT) | d = 0.8-1.2 | ASHA Evidence Maps 2023 |
| Interventions also improving sentence-level intelligibility | 5 of 8 | ASHA Evidence Maps 2023 |
| Single-word intelligibility gain after intensive dysarthria therapy, familiar listeners | 10.8% (95% CI 7.2-14.4) | Pennington et al., DMCN 2013 |
| Connected-speech gain, unfamiliar listeners | 10.5% (95% CI 7.3-13.8) | Pennington et al., DMCN 2013 |
| Children with CP receiving speech therapy at age 4 vs age 10 | 62% vs 64% | Long et al., DMCN 2022 |
Context: the 2013 intensive therapy study treated 15 children aged 5-11 with three 40-minute sessions a week for 6 weeks (Pennington et al., DMCN 2013). The five interventions with sentence-level gains were Beatalk, IDT, LSVT LOUD, PROMPT and SIT/mSIT, and SIT was the only one to improve communication participation. Because most children in the Wisconsin cohorts received therapy, their growth curves (section 4) cannot be read as natural history alone. Adult voice-treatment trials, such as those in our Parkinson’s speech and voice treatment statistics, are far larger than anything yet run in childhood dysarthria. Most recent available data: Korkalainen et al., 2023.
7. Adolescents and Adults With CP
Speech outcomes do not stop at age 8, but the data thin out sharply after childhood. In the European SPARCLE cohort, 34.2% of young adults aged 22-27 with CP had severe communication difficulties, and 49.0% of those who needed speech therapy said the need went unmet (Rioual et al., Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences 2024). The gap varied widely by country, which suggests that how services are organised, not only clinical need, decides who gets therapy.
Adult registers confirm that a sizeable minority communicate effectively only with difficulty. Among 1,591 Swedish adults with CP, 15.7% were at Communication Function Classification System level V (Rodby-Bousquet, Alriksson-Schmidt and Jarl, DMCN 2021). Mortality data add urgency: young people with CP die at far higher rates than peers (Shaw et al., JAMA Pediatrics 2026), and the communication figures above suggest many of them would struggle to describe symptoms in speech.
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Young adults (22-27) with severe communication difficulties (FCCS III-V), n=310 | 34.2% | Rioual et al., Frontiers 2024 (SPARCLE) |
| Young adults needing speech therapy | 31.6% (98 of 310) | Rioual et al., Frontiers 2024 (SPARCLE) |
| Of those, unmet speech therapy need | 49.0% (48 of 98) | Rioual et al., Frontiers 2024 (SPARCLE) |
| Unmet speech therapy need, Italy vs Germany | 77.8% vs 30.8% | Rioual et al., Frontiers 2024 (SPARCLE) |
| Adults with CP (16-76) at CFCS level I vs level V | 46.1% vs 15.7% | Rodby-Bousquet et al., DMCN 2021 |
| Adolescents at Viking level IV at age 14 | 15 of 44 (vs 22 of 44 at age 4) | Jensen and Hustad, DMCN 2026 |
| Mortality vs general population, youth and young adults with CP | HR 9.62 (95% CI 8.06-11.48) | Shaw et al., JAMA Pediatrics 2026 |
| Deaths among people with CP in the ADDM mortality follow-up | 123 of 1,612 | Shaw et al., JAMA Pediatrics 2026 |
Outlier note: adults at CFCS level I reported pain more often (72.5%) than those at levels II-V (56.5-64.9%), a pattern that may reflect how hard pain is to report without effective communication rather than less pain (Rodby-Bousquet et al., DMCN 2021). Only 49% of people with CP who died had CP coded on the death certificate. Most recent available adult register data: Rodby-Bousquet et al., 2021.
Summary: Cerebral Palsy Dysarthria and Speech Intelligibility by the Numbers
| Metric | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Non-verbal at age 5, pre/perinatal CP | 24.5% | ACPR Report 2023 |
| Children with CP who could not talk | 1 in 4 | Novak et al., Pediatrics 2012 |
| Delayed or disordered speech at about age 5 | 82% | Mei et al., DMCN 2020 |
| Speech disorder plus non-verbal, western Sweden | 21% + 32% | Nordberg et al., Acta Paediatrica 2013 |
| CP birth prevalence, high-income countries | 1.6 per 1,000 | McIntyre et al., DMCN 2022 |
| CP birth prevalence, Australia 2017-2018 (provisional) | 1.3 per 1,000 | ACPR 2025 Bulletin |
| US prevalence, 8-year-olds, 2022 | About 2.4 per 1,000 | CDC ADDM Network, Patrick et al. 2026 |
| No functional speech at age 4, GMFCS V | 6 of 8 children | Hustad et al., JSLHR 2010 |
| Probability of VSS level IV, age 4 vs 10 | 0.57 vs 0.30 | Long et al., DMCN 2022 |
| Children changing VSS level, age 4 to 14 (all improved) | 43% | Jensen and Hustad, DMCN 2026 |
| Modelled intelligibility at age 8, NSMI vs SMI-LCI | 92% vs 63% | Mahr et al., JSLHR 2020 |
| Single-word intelligibility ceiling, SMI-LCI | 42.4% | Hustad et al., JSLHR 2020 |
| Children needing AAC who had a communication aid | 11 of 35 | Lillehaug et al., AAC 2023 |
| Children requiring AAC who used AAC systems (Canada) | 38% | Coan-Brill et al., AJSLP 2025 |
| RCTs of therapy for early-acquired dysarthria | 0 | Pennington et al., Cochrane 2016 |
| Effect sizes, strongest motor speech interventions | d = 0.8-1.2 | ASHA Evidence Maps 2023 |
| Unmet speech therapy need, young adults | 49.0% | Rioual et al., Frontiers 2024 |
Methodology and Sources
- Australian Cerebral Palsy Register, ACPR Report 2023: speech status at age 5, birth years 1995-2016.
- Australian Cerebral Palsy Register, 2025 Bulletin: Birth prevalence and trends, birth years 1995-2018: prevalence trend and register size.
- McIntyre et al., Global prevalence of cerebral palsy: A systematic analysis, DMCN 2022: 41 regions in 27 countries.
- Vanderbilt Health News, June 2026, reporting Patrick et al., Prevalence of Cerebral Palsy Among Children Aged 4 and 8 Years in 5 US Communities in 2022, Pediatrics Open Science 2026, as referenced on CDC, Tracking Methods for Cerebral Palsy.
- CDC, Data and Statistics for Cerebral Palsy (2010 ADDM estimates).
- Sellier et al. (Surveillance of Cerebral Palsy in Europe), Decreasing prevalence in cerebral palsy, DMCN 2016.
- Novak et al., Clinical prognostic messages from a systematic review on cerebral palsy, Pediatrics 2012.
- Nordberg et al., Speech problems affect more than one in two children with cerebral palsy, Acta Paediatrica 2013.
- Mei et al., Speech in children with cerebral palsy, DMCN 2020.
- Mei et al., Motor speech impairment, activity, and participation in children with cerebral palsy, Int J Speech-Language Pathology 2014.
- Delacy and Reid, Profile of associated impairments at age 5 years in Australia by CP subtype and GMFCS level, DMCN 2016.
- Hustad et al., Classification of speech and language profiles in 4-year-old children with cerebral palsy, JSLHR 2010.
- Hustad et al., Differentiating typical from atypical speech production in 5-year-old children with CP, AJSLP 2019.
- Hustad et al., Longitudinal growth in single-word intelligibility among children with CP from 24 to 96 months, JSLHR 2020.
- Mahr, Rathouz and Hustad, Longitudinal growth in intelligibility of connected speech from 2 to 8 years in children with CP, JSLHR 2020.
- Hustad et al., Speech development between 30 and 119 months in typical children I, JSLHR 2021.
- Long et al., Longitudinal change in speech classification between 4 and 10 years in children with CP, DMCN 2022.
- Jensen and Hustad, Longitudinal speech and gross motor function development in children and adolescents with CP, DMCN 2026 (author manuscript).
- Pennington et al., Communication disorders in young children with cerebral palsy, DMCN 2020.
- Pennington et al., Development of the Viking Speech Scale, Research in Developmental Disabilities 2013: scale definition (139 children; inter-rater kappa above .58).
- Lillehaug, Klevberg and Stadskleiv, Provision of AAC interventions to Norwegian preschool children with CP, Augmentative and Alternative Communication 2023.
- Coan-Brill et al., Developing a profile of Canadian children with CP who require AAC, AJSLP 2025.
- Pennington et al., Speech therapy for children with dysarthria acquired before three years of age, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016.
- Korkalainen et al., Motor speech interventions for children with CP: a systematic review, JSLHR 2023.
- ASHA Evidence Maps, article summary of Korkalainen et al. 2023.
- Pennington et al., Intensive dysarthria therapy for younger children with CP, DMCN 2013.
- Rioual et al., Unmet environmental and healthcare needs in young adults with CP (SPARCLE), Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences 2024.
- Rodby-Bousquet, Alriksson-Schmidt and Jarl, Prevalence of pain in adults with CP, DMCN 2021.
- Shaw et al., Mortality among youth and young adults with ASD, ID, or CP, JAMA Pediatrics 2026.
- Data watch: (1) The 2022 US ADDM figures (2.4 and 2.2 per 1,000, the racial gap, spastic and walking shares) are taken from Vanderbilt Health’s report of Patrick et al. 2026 because the journal page blocked automated access; confidence intervals were not available, and the 2022 and 2010 CDC estimates use different methods and sites, so the drop from about 3 to 2.4 per 1,000 should not be read as a trend. (2) Speech prevalence varies with definition: the Australian register counts 24.5% non-verbal, the Swedish cohort 32% non-verbal, and studies assessing every child directly find 82% to 90% with some speech or motor speech impairment; these are not in conflict but measure different thresholds. (3) Several source tables contain small internal inconsistencies (Long et al. 2022 age-4 VSS counts; Hustad et al. 2019 typical-group size; Rioual et al. 2024 Table 1 IQ counts), so we used only figures stated consistently in the text or abstract. (4) The Hustad lab CP cohorts are small (34 to 101 children) and recruited in the US Midwest; the Norwegian and Canadian AAC samples are 95 children and 60 respondents. (5) The Jensen and Hustad 2026 figures come from the PMC author manuscript, which also contains a 47% vs 7-of-22 mismatch we did not use, and may change slightly in the final version. (6) Most clinical speech data are older than 3 years; flagged inline as most recent available. Australian 2017-2018 prevalence figures are provisional.
Last updated: October 18, 2026. We update this roundup quarterly, and the next refresh is expected when the Australian Cerebral Palsy Register publishes its 2027 ACPR Report finalising the 2017-2018 birth-year data.