Saroj Saigal1, Mark A Ferro2, Ryan J Van Lieshout3, Louis A Schmidt4, Katherine M Morrison5, Michael H Boyle3. 1. Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Electronic address: saigal@mcmaster.ca. 2. Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 4. Department of Psychology, Neuroscience and Behaviour, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 5. Department of Pediatrics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the health-related quality of life (HRQL) trajectories of a regional cohort of extremely low birth weight (ELBW, <1000 g) survivors (births from 1977 to 1982) and a group of normal birth weight (NBW) controls, at 3 ages: 12-16 years, 22-26 years, and 29-36 years, spanning over 20 years. We hypothesized that the HRQL of the ELBW cohort would be significantly compromised compared with their NBW peers, and that neurosensory impairments (NSI) would have an additional negative effect. STUDY DESIGN: We used the Health Utilities Index Mark 3, in which health status was self-assessed and utility scores were derived from community preferences; multilevel modeling was used to delineate trajectories of HRQL among ELBW survivors with (n = 37) and without NSI (n = 116), and NBW controls (n = 137). RESULTS: Adjusting for participant sex and socioeconomic status at age 8 years, ELBW survivors with NSI had consistently lower HRQL compared with both ELBW survivors without NSI and NBW controls, from adolescence through to adulthood (β = -0.264; P < .001). ELBW survivors without NSI also had significantly lower HRQL compared with NBW controls (β = -0.092; P < .01). At all ages, differences seen in the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 scores between ELBW participants and NBW controls were clinically important, though there was no differential rate of decline between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: ELBW survivors manifest meaningfully poorer HRQL from their early teens through their mid-30s. Individuals with NSI appear to represent a distinct group of ELBW survivors with substantially lower HRQL at all ages. Information on HRQL can be helpful in prioritizing research and intervention strategies.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the health-related quality of life (HRQL) trajectories of a regional cohort of extremely low birth weight (ELBW, <1000 g) survivors (births from 1977 to 1982) and a group of normal birth weight (NBW) controls, at 3 ages: 12-16 years, 22-26 years, and 29-36 years, spanning over 20 years. We hypothesized that the HRQL of the ELBW cohort would be significantly compromised compared with their NBW peers, and that neurosensory impairments (NSI) would have an additional negative effect. STUDY DESIGN: We used the Health Utilities Index Mark 3, in which health status was self-assessed and utility scores were derived from community preferences; multilevel modeling was used to delineate trajectories of HRQL among ELBW survivors with (n = 37) and without NSI (n = 116), and NBW controls (n = 137). RESULTS: Adjusting for participant sex and socioeconomic status at age 8 years, ELBW survivors with NSI had consistently lower HRQL compared with both ELBW survivors without NSI and NBW controls, from adolescence through to adulthood (β = -0.264; P < .001). ELBW survivors without NSI also had significantly lower HRQL compared with NBW controls (β = -0.092; P < .01). At all ages, differences seen in the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 scores between ELBW participants and NBW controls were clinically important, though there was no differential rate of decline between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: ELBW survivors manifest meaningfully poorer HRQL from their early teens through their mid-30s. Individuals with NSI appear to represent a distinct group of ELBW survivors with substantially lower HRQL at all ages. Information on HRQL can be helpful in prioritizing research and intervention strategies.
Authors: Kikelomo Babata; H Reeve Bright; Elizabeth N Allred; Carmina Erdei; Karl C K Kuban; Robert M Joseph; T Michael O'Shea; Olaf Dammann; Alan Leviton Journal: Early Hum Dev Date: 2018-04-24 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Kristie L Poole; Louis A Schmidt; Saroj Saigal; Michael H Boyle; Katherine M Morrison; Ryan J Van Lieshout Journal: J Appl Dev Psychol Date: 2018-02-15
Authors: Emilie Rune Hegelund; Cathrine Lawaetz Wimmelmann; Jenna Marie Strizzi; Anna Paldam Folker; Erik Lykke Mortensen; Trine Flensborg-Madsen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-11-02 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Genevieve L Taylor; Robert M Joseph; Karl C K Kuban; Laurie M Douglass; Jeff Laux; Bree Andrews; Rebecca C Fry; Wayne A Price; Thomas M O'Shea Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2021-04-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Edward F Bell; Susan R Hintz; Nellie I Hansen; Carla M Bann; Myra H Wyckoff; Sara B DeMauro; Michele C Walsh; Betty R Vohr; Barbara J Stoll; Waldemar A Carlo; Krisa P Van Meurs; Matthew A Rysavy; Ravi M Patel; Stephanie L Merhar; Pablo J Sánchez; Abbot R Laptook; Anna Maria Hibbs; C Michael Cotten; Carl T D'Angio; Sarah Winter; Janell Fuller; Abhik Das Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Robert Eves; Marina Mendonça; Nicole Baumann; Yanyan Ni; Brian A Darlow; John Horwood; Lianne J Woodward; Lex W Doyle; Jeanie Cheong; Peter J Anderson; Peter Bartmann; Neil Marlow; Samantha Johnson; Eero Kajantie; Petteri Hovi; Chiara Nosarti; Marit S Indredavik; Kari-Anne I Evensen; Katri Räikkönen; Kati Heinonen; Jennifer Zeitlin; Dieter Wolke Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 26.796