OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the self-reported health status and health-related quality of life of British teenagers who are in mainstream schooling and were born before 29 weeks' gestational age compared with British teenagers who were born at term. METHODS: All surviving children who were born at <29 weeks' gestation in the former Northern Region of England in 1983 and in the former Oxford Region of England and in Scotland in 1984 were eligible. A comparison group of teenagers who were born at term were also recruited. Children's responses to the Health Utilities Index Mark III were compared. RESULTS: A total of 218 of the original 535 children who were born in the 3 regions during the study period were alive at 15 to 16 years of age. A complete Health Utilities Index Mark III record was available for 140 children in mainstream schools and for 108 control subjects. In 7 of the 8 attributes (vision, hearing, speech, emotion, pain, ambulation, and dexterity), there were no statistically significant differences in any functional impairment between the comparator groups. However, the preterm group did report a higher level of functional impairment in the cognition attribute (40.7% vs 25.0%). Although there was no difference in the median Health Utilities Index Mark III utility score between the 2 groups (0.93), there was a broader range of utility scores for the preterm group (0.07-1.0 vs 0.45-1.0 for the control group). CONCLUSIONS: Despite objective evidence that children and teenagers who were born preterm have poorer health on average than term-born control subjects, this is not reflected in their own ratings of their health status and health-related quality of life at 15 to 16 years of age. The reasons for these differences need to be further explored.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe the self-reported health status and health-related quality of life of British teenagers who are in mainstream schooling and were born before 29 weeks' gestational age compared with British teenagers who were born at term. METHODS: All surviving children who were born at <29 weeks' gestation in the former Northern Region of England in 1983 and in the former Oxford Region of England and in Scotland in 1984 were eligible. A comparison group of teenagers who were born at term were also recruited. Children's responses to the Health Utilities Index Mark III were compared. RESULTS: A total of 218 of the original 535 children who were born in the 3 regions during the study period were alive at 15 to 16 years of age. A complete Health Utilities Index Mark III record was available for 140 children in mainstream schools and for 108 control subjects. In 7 of the 8 attributes (vision, hearing, speech, emotion, pain, ambulation, and dexterity), there were no statistically significant differences in any functional impairment between the comparator groups. However, the preterm group did report a higher level of functional impairment in the cognition attribute (40.7% vs 25.0%). Although there was no difference in the median Health Utilities Index Mark III utility score between the 2 groups (0.93), there was a broader range of utility scores for the preterm group (0.07-1.0 vs 0.45-1.0 for the control group). CONCLUSIONS: Despite objective evidence that children and teenagers who were born preterm have poorer health on average than term-born control subjects, this is not reflected in their own ratings of their health status and health-related quality of life at 15 to 16 years of age. The reasons for these differences need to be further explored.
Authors: Maureen Hack; Mark Schluchter; Christopher B Forrest; H Gerry Taylor; Dennis Drotar; Grayson Holmbeck; Eric Youngstrom; Seunghee Margevicius; Laura Andreias Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-06-04 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Maureen Hack; Christopher B Forrest; Mark Schluchter; H Gerry Taylor; Dennis Drotar; Grayson Holmbeck; Laura Andreias Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2011-10