4.7 Article

School-age outcomes in children who were extremely low birth weight from four international population-based cohorts

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 112, 期 4, 页码 943-950

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.112.4.943

关键词

extremely low birth weight; school-age outcomes; international cohorts; population-based study

资金

  1. AHRQ HHS [HS-09493-01] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The aim of this study was to determine whether learning and school problems in extremely low birth weight (ELBW) and reference children differ between cohorts in different countries. Methods. Participants were 4 international population-based cohorts of ELBW survivors who were 500 to 1000 g birth weight from New Jersey, central-west Ontario, Bavaria, and Holland (n = 532) and were followed longitudinally from birth. Psychometric data were collected independently and prospectively and included at least 1 measure of cognitive status and 1 measure of achievement administered to the children between the ages of 8 and 11 years. Adjustments were made for comparison of all measures based on reference norms within each country. Information on special educational assistance and grade repetition was obtained from the parents. Results. The overall follow-up rate was 84% ( range: 74% - 90%; n = 436). The proportion of children who performed within the normal range (greater than or equal to 85) were as follows: IQ between 44% and 62%; reading between 46% and 81%; arithmetic between 31% and 76%; and spelling between 39% and 65%. Children from New Jersey had the lowest rates of cognitive and achievement deficits, and Bavarian children did less well in achievement scores relative to their peers and other cohorts. Despite these differences, more than half of all cohorts required special educational assistance and/or repeated a grade. Conclusions. School difficulties were found to be a serious sequelae of ELBW in all 4 countries, an observation that has social and economic implications.

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

4.7
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