Relative contributions of prenatal complications, perinatal characteristics, neonatal morbidities and socio-economic conditions of preterm infants on the occurrence of developmental disorders up to 7 years of age

Müller, Jean-Baptiste; Hanf, Matthieu; Flamant, Cyrille; Marion, Olivier; Rouger, Valérie; Gascoin, Géraldine; Basset, Hélène; Rozé, Jean‐Christophe; Nusinovici, Simon

doi:10.1093/ije/dyy240

Cited by 10 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While progress in the neonatal care brought on a greater survival rate of these children, the developmental consequences persist. A research [16] analyzing 4,122 premature children showed results in line with ours. This research also showed that a large percentage of children exhibited difficulties in speech-language development.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Quality of life of families of premature children

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. The quality of family life is defined as the wellbeing of a family in which the individual and family needs constantly interact. Families are continually adapting to various changes in the course of life, until they reach a balance in functioning. Premature birth is a challenge for parents. Many parents develop symptoms of depression or anxiety, and impaired family functioning continues to manifest years after the premature birth itself. All this significantly affects the quality of life of these families. Material and Methods. This research included 101 families of premature children in the territory of Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. The following assessment instruments were used: a general questionnaire and the Beach Center Family Quality of Life Scale. Results. The primary family is the most common living environment. More than half (61.5%) of children spend the most of their time with their primary family. The majority of parents included in this research are satisfied with family interactions. The emotional component of this category was rated as ?very satisfied? by most of the parents (61.5%). A large percentage of parents (86.5%) are involved in the Association of Parents of Premature Children and this is an important factor in improving their quality of life and making transitions easier. Conclusion. Premature birth of a child significantly affects the family quality of life. A clinical approach to these families is not sufficient. A holistic, family-oriented approach could potentially be very useful in working with these families. Addressing both the physical and psychological needs of these families can provide very useful information and guidelines for further work in improving their quality of life.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Quality of life of families of premature children

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although the standards for males and females in ASQ are different, and this may represent a finding only from Ceará deviation from normal curve distribution, this is in line with other studies that identified higher risk of suboptimal development, particularly in verbal and reading abilities, for males as compared to females. [5, 23–28] We are not able to determine mechanisms leading to the sex-differences but we hypothesize differences in parental stimulation by sex and age in Brazilian culture may be a contributor[29]. In our study, the magnitude of the difference between males and females appeared to increase after 36 months of age.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 53%

Prevalence and socioeconomic determinants of development delay among children in Ceará, Brazil: A population-based study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess the prevalence of child development delay and to identify socioeconomic determinants.Study designWe conducted a population-based cross-sectional study of children 2 to 72 months of age residing in the state of Ceará, Brazil. In total, 3200 households were randomly selected for participation in the study and had child development assessed with the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) version 3. Development delay was defined as a score of less than -2 standard deviations below the median of the Brazilian ASQ standard. We present population-level prevalence of delay in five development domains and assess socioeconomic determinants.ResultsA total of 3566 children completed the ASQ development assessment of which 9.2% (95% CI: 8.1–10.5) had at least one domain with development delay. The prevalence of delay increased with age in all domains and males were at higher risk for communication, gross motor and personal-social development delays as compared to females (p-values <0.05). We found robust associations of indicators of socioeconomic status with risk of development delay; increasing monthly income and higher social class were associated with reduced risk of delay across all domains (28,2% in the poorest and 21,2% in richest for any delay, p-values <0.05 for all domains). In addition, children in poor households that participated in conditional cash transfer (CCT) programs appeared to have reduced risk of delay as compared to children from households that were eligible, but did not participate, in CCT programs.ConclusionsThere is a relatively high population-level prevalence of development delay in at least one domain among children 0–6 years of age in Ceará, Brazil. Integrated child development, social support, and poverty reduction interventions may reduce the population-level prevalence of development delay in Ceará and similar settings.

show abstract

“…In 2018, Muller and colleagues used a large French longitudinal population-based preterm (<35 weeks) cohort to study the relative contributions of prenatal complications, perinatal characteristics, neonatal morbidities, and socioeconomic conditions to the occurrence of a NDD. In this already preterm population, it was found that, as well as perinatal characteristics, socioeconomic conditions still played a significant role ( 103 ). Furthermore, for a similar purpose, the Mannheim cohort of 362 children born between February 1986 and February 1998 was recruited through a two-factorial design which would allocate them into one of nine groups according to their degree of biological (e.g., preterm, low birthweight, or Apgar) or psychosocial (e.g., parental low education, psychiatric disorder, and early parenthood) risk of later developmental disorders ( 104 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review of the biological, social, and environmental determinants of intellectual disability in children and adolescents

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimThis systematic review aimed to identify the most important social, environmental, biological, and/or genetic risk factors for intellectual disability (ID).MethodsEligible were published prospective or retrospective comparative studies investigating risk factors for ID in children 4–18 years. Exclusions were single group studies with no comparator without ID and a sample size <100. Electronic databases (Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Campbell Collaboration, and CINAHL) were searched for eligible publications from 1980 to 2020. Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal instruments, appropriate for study type, were used to assess study quality and risk of bias. Descriptive characteristics and individual study results were presented followed by the synthesis for individual risk factors, also assessed using GRADE.ResultsFifty-eight individual eligible studies were grouped into six exposure topics: sociodemographic; antenatal and perinatal; maternal physical health; maternal mental health; environmental; genetic or biological studies. There were few eligible genetic studies. For half the topics, the certainty of evidence (GRADE) was moderate or high.ConclusionMultiple studies have examined individual potential determinants of ID, but few have investigated holistically to identify those populations most at risk. Our review would indicate that there are vulnerable groups where risk factors we identified, such as low socioeconomic status, minority ethnicity, teenage motherhood, maternal mental illness, and alcohol abuse, may cluster, highlighting a target for preventive strategies. At-risk populations need to be identified and monitored so that interventions can be implemented when appropriate, at preconception, during pregnancy, or after birth. This could reduce the likelihood of ID and provide optimal opportunities for vulnerable infants.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=120032], identifier [CRD42019120032].

show abstract

Relative contributions of prenatal complications, perinatal characteristics, neonatal morbidities and socio-economic conditions of preterm infants on the occurrence of developmental disorders up to 7 years of age

Cited by 10 publications

References 54 publications

Quality of life of families of premature children

Quality of life of families of premature children

Prevalence and socioeconomic determinants of development delay among children in Ceará, Brazil: A population-based study

A systematic review of the biological, social, and environmental determinants of intellectual disability in children and adolescents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About