4.4 Article

Executive functioning deficits in young adult survivors of bronchopulmonary dysplasia

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 37, Issue 21, Pages 1940-1945

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2014.991451

Keywords

Bronchopulmonary dysplasia; executive functioning; health-related quality of life; social functioning; very-low birth weight

Categories

Funding

  1. Research Forum for the Child, Queen's University Belfast
  2. Friends of Jessica Trust
  3. Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke Association
  4. Perinatal Trust Fund, Royal Victoria Hospital

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To assess long-term impairments of executive functioning in adult survivors of bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Method: Participants were assessed on measures of executive functioning, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and social functioning. Survivors of BPD (n = 63; 34 males; mean age 24.2 years) were compared with groups comprising preterm (without BPD) (<1500 g; n = 45) and full-term controls (n = 63). Analysis of variance was used to explore differences among groups for outcome measures. Multiple regression analyzes were performed to identify factors predictive of long-term outcomes. Results: Significantly more BPD adults, compared with preterm and term controls, showed deficits in executive functioning relating to problem solving (OR: 5.1, CI: 1.4-19.3), awareness of behavior (OR: 12.7, CI: 1.5-106.4) and organization of their environment (OR: 13.0, CI: 1.6-107.1). Birth weight, HRQoL and social functioning were predictive of deficits in executive functioning. Conclusions: This study represents the largest sample of survivors into adulthood of BPD and is the first to show that deficits in executive functioning persist. Children with BPD should be assessed to identify cognitive impairments and allow early intervention aimed at ameliorating their effects.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available