4.2 Article

Medical, cognitive and academic outcomes of very low birth weight infants at age 10-14 years in Ireland

期刊

IRISH JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 183, 期 4, 页码 525-532

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s11845-013-1040-9

关键词

Low birth weight; VLBW; Preterm; Prematurity; Neuro-disability; Cognitive outcome

资金

  1. St. John of God Hospital research committee

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Low birth weight (LBW) is a leading cause of infant mortality and morbidity, and a specific risk for the development of neuro-developmental and academic problems. To examine the medical, cognitive and academic outcomes of VLBW (< 1,500 g) children, born in one maternity hospital in Dublin between 1995 and 1997. The study employed a prospective/cohort design, with semi-structured, and standardised measures, along with the completion of a study-specific questionnaire. Ratings were obtained from parents and teachers. Of the 127 surviving VLBW cohort, 64 (50 %) consented to assessment at a mean age of 11.6 years (SD 1.0) along with a matched-weight and gender control sample of 51. VLBW children had an increased risk of chronic medical problems and neuro-sensory deficits, but without any increased use in services. Similarly, they had lower IQ (mean 89.7 compared to NBW 101.3, p < 0.001) and more were identified by teachers to have special education needs (33 % VLBW vs. 7 % NBW, p < 0.005). With regard to academic attainments, birth weight had a significant [t(98) = -4.54, p < 0.001] and robust effect (eta(2) = 0.17) on mathematical attainment scores. Those with lower SES fared least well off. Although significant advances have been made in reducing infant mortality, there is a recognised increased risk of subsequent disability especially with decreasing gestational age, and when coupled with low SES. Having facilitated the survival of vulnerable infants, services must be available for the necessary on-going medical and educational support and treatment that they require throughout adolescent years.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据