4.0 Article

Birth weight, childhood socioeconomic environment, and cognitive development in the 1958 British birth cohort study

期刊

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 325, 期 7359, 页码 305-308

出版社

BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.325.7359.305

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To examine the combined effect of social class and weight at birth on cognitive trajectories during school age and the associations between birth weight and educational outcomes through to 33 years. Design Longitudinal, population based, birth cohort study. Participants 10 845 males and females born during 3-9 March 1958 with information on birth weight, social class, and cognitive tests. Main outcome measures Reading, maths, draw a man, copying designs, verbal and non-verbal ability tests at ages 7, 11, and 16, highest qualifications achieved by 33, and trajectories of maths standardised scores at 7-16 years. Results The outcome of all childhood cognitive tests and educational achievements improved significantly with increasing birth weight. Analysis of maths scores at 7 and of highest qualifications achieved by 33 showed that the relations were robust to adjustment for potential confounding factors. For each kilogram increase in birth weight, maths z score increased by 0.17 (adjusted estimate 0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.10 to 0.21) for males and 0.21 (0.20,0.14 to 0.25) for females. Trajectories of maths z scores between 7 and 16 years diverged for different social class groups: participants from classes I and II increased their relative position on the score with increasing age, whereas classes IV and V showed a relative decline with increasing age. Birth weight explained much less of the variation in cognition than did social class (range 0.5-1.5% v 2.9-12.5%). Conclusions The postnatal environment has an overwhelming influence on cognitive function through to early adulthood, but these strong effects do not explain the weaker but independent association with birth weight.

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

4.0
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