| Literature DB >> 29191797 |
Thuy Mai Luu1,2, Li Feng Xie1, Perrine Peckre1, Sylvana Cote1,3, Thierry Karsenti4, Claire-Dominique Walker5, Julie Gosselin6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preterm birth affects 8% to 11% of the population and conveys a significant risk of developmental delays. Intervention programs that support child development have been shown to have a positive impact on early motor and cognitive development and on parental well-being. However, these programs are often difficult to implement in a real-life setting due to lack of resources. Hence, our multidisciplinary team developed Mieux Agir au Quotidien (MAQ) to teach developmentally supportive care to parents of preterm infants with the goal of improving child development and parental outcomes. Our intervention included 3 in-person workshops that occurred prior to hospital discharge and a Web-based platform with written and videotaped materials that addressed 5 main themes: (1) infant behavioral cues, (2) flexion positioning; (3) oral feeding support, (4) parent-infant interactions, and (5) anticipation of developmental milestones.Entities:
Keywords: Internet; Web-based intervention; developmental intervention; early intervention; neurodevelopmental outcomes; preterm infants
Year: 2017 PMID: 29191797 PMCID: PMC5730819 DOI: 10.2196/resprot.8289
Source DB: PubMed Journal: JMIR Res Protoc ISSN: 1929-0748
Timing of intervention.
| Schedule | In the neonatal intensive care | Home |
| Timing | Starting at 32 weeks of gestational age. | From term-equivalent age to 1 year of age. |
| Number of sessions | Three in-person workshops: (1) infant behavioral cues, (2) flexion positioning, (3) parent-infant interactions. | Consolidation of first 4 Web-based modules. |
Figure 1Flow diagram of study population.
Sociodemographic and neonatal characteristics of the study population.
| Characteristics | Comparison | Intervention | |||
| High school and less | 5 (11) | 12 (24) | |||
| Some college | 20 (44) | 15 (29) | |||
| University | 20 (45) | 24(47) | |||
| Single parent household, n (%) | 4 (9) | 4 (8) | |||
| White, n (%) | 36 (80) | 35 (69) | |||
| High school and less | 11 (27) | 12 (26) | |||
| Some college | 14 (33) | 14 (30) | |||
| University | 16 (38) | 20 (44) | |||
| Gestational age, weeks, mean (SDa) | 25.6 (1.5) | 27.5 (1.4) | |||
| Birth weight, g, mean (SD) | 917 (207) | 1088 (233) | |||
| Male, n (%) | 28 (54) | 34 (62) | |||
| Multiple gestation, n (%) | 12 (23) | 10 (18) | |||
| Small for gestational age, n (%) | 6 (12) | 4 (7) | |||
| Bronchopulmonary dysplasia, n (%) | 33 (63) | 28 (51) | |||
| Sepsis, n (%) | 20 (38) | 21 (38) | |||
| Surgical necrotizing enterocolitis, n (%) | 2 (4) | 0 | |||
| Severe retinopathy of prematurity, n (%) | 10 (19) | 2 (4) | |||
| Severe brain lesions on ultrasound, n (%) | 2 (4) | 6 (11) | |||
| Duration of neonatal hospitalization, days, mean (SD) | 102 (41) | 89 (31) | |||
aSD: standard deviation.
Parental outcomes at infant’s 4 months corrected age.
| Outcome | Comparison (N=43) | Intervention (N=42) | |||
| Parental self-efficacy, median (IQRb) | 8.8 (7.8-9.3) | 8.8 (8.2-9.2) | .57 | ||
| Low self-efficacy, n (%) | 11 (26) | 8 (19) | .47 | ||
| Perceived parental impact, median (IQR) | 9.0 (7.2-10.0) | 8.1 (7.0-9.8) | .59 | ||
| Low parental impact, n (%) | 6 (14) | 7 (17) | .73 | ||
| Parental coercive behaviors, median (IQR) | 0.4 (0-1.4) | 1.3 (0.3-2.1) | .04 | ||
| Coercive parenting, n (%) | 6 (14) | 10 (24) | .25 | ||
| Parental overprotection, median (IQR) | 5.2 (3.0-6.4) | 4.3 (3.0-6.8) | .33 | ||
| Overprotection, n (%) | 9 (21) | 8 (19) | .83 | ||
| Total stress score, median (IQR) | 63 (54-70) | 62 (50-82) | .82 | ||
| Parental distress, median (IQR) | 24 (19-28) | 26 (19-31) | .82 | ||
| Parent-child dysfunctional interaction, median (IQR) | 18 (14-21) | 16 (14-21) | .39 | ||
| Difficult child, median (IQR) | 22 (16-25) | 20 (16-26) | .82 | ||
aPACOTIS: Parental Cognitions and Conduct Toward the Infant Scale.
bIQR: interquartile range.
Infant neurodevelopmental outcomes at 12 months of corrected age.
| Outcome | Comparison (N=50) | Intervention (N=51) | ||
| Total score, median (min-max) | 47 (33-56) | 49 (6-58) | .53 | |
| Score <10th percentile, n (%) | 22/49 (45) | 21/51 (41) | .71 | |
| Cognition score, mean (SDb) | 96 (9) | 97 (13) | .77 | |
| Motor composite score, mean (SD) | 92 (11) | 89 (13) | .22 | |
| Gross motor scale, mean (SD) | 9 (3) | 8 (3) | .78 | |
| Fine motor scale, mean (SD) | 9 (2) | 9 (2) | .18 | |
| Language composite score, mean (SD) | 90 (12) | 96 (13) | .74 | |
| Expressive language scale, mean (SD) | 8 (2) | 9 (3) | .27 | |
| Receptive language scale, median (min-max) | 9 (4-11) | 9 (1-15) | .16 | |
| Cognition score <85, n (%) | 3/50 (6) | 6/48 (13) | .20 | |
| Motor composite score <85, n (%) | 10/49 (20) | 10/48 (22) | .76 | |
| Language composite score <85, n (%) | 13/50 (26) | 7/48 (15) | .26 | |
aBSITD: Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development.
aSD: standard deviation.