Regional Follow up of Late Preterm Neonatal Intensive Care Graduates: Methodological Considerations.

The aim is to guide researchers who are contemplating embarking on research by discussing the methodological challenges encountered in a retrospective follow-up study of three-year-old, late preterm infants (LPIs) who received neonatal intensive care (NIC) in Northern Ireland in 2006. The importance of effective research examining the longer term outcomes of infants admitted to NIC has received increasing recognition. Follow-up cohort and longitudinal studies have grown in number globally, yet the research methodology relating to follow up of NIC graduates is unclear. This paper highlights the methodological challenges of conducting retrospective follow-up research, from the initial planning stages through to the collection of data from the children, including identification of infants from a retrospective database, ethical issues, child-safety concerns and recruitment challenges. This paper creates an awareness of potential issues that may arise in follow-up research with NIC graduates. The paper also offers practical and effective examples of dealing with these issues, helping to ensure the smooth running of an ethical, professionally conducted, methodologically sound and clinically relevant follow-up study.

Impact of Neonatal Intensive Care on Late Preterm Infants: Developmental Outcomes at 3 Years

BACKGROUND: Late preterm infants (LPIs) (34-36 weeks' gestation) account for up to 75% of preterm births and constitute a significant proportion of all neonatal admissions. This study assessed the impact of neonatal intensive or high-dependency care (IC) on developmental outcomes of LPIs at 3 years of age. METHODS: This cohort study included 225 children born late preterm in Northern Ireland during 2006. Children born late preterm who received IC were compared with children born late preterm who did not receive IC. Cognitive, motor, and language skills were assessed by using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Third Edition. Growth was assessed by using anthropometric measures of height and weight. RESULTS: LPIs who received IC were more often less mature (34 weeks' gestation), with lower birth weight (<= 2500 g) and Apgar scores (<7 at 5 minutes) compared with the control group. They were more often born by cesarean delivery and more likely to have received resuscitation at birth. At 3 years of age, children born late preterm who received IC demonstrated similar cognitive, motor, and language skills compared with children in the control group. Measurements of growth also did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite having increased maternal, perinatal, and neonatal risk factors, there were no significant differences in early childhood development between LPIs who received IC and those who did not. LPIs do not receive routine follow-up after IC and this study provides useful and reassuring data for parents and clinicians on the longer-term outcome of this infant group.

Neonatal intensive care and late preterm infants:Health and family functioning at three years

Background: Late preterm infants (LPIs), born at 34 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks of gestation contribute a significant proportion of all neonatal intensive care (NIC) admissions and are regarded as being at risk of adverse outcomes compared to term-born infants.

Aim: To explore the health outcomes and family functioning of LPIs who required neonatal intensive care, at three years of age.

Study design and subjects: This cohort study included 225 children born late preterm, between 1 January and 31 December 2006 in Northern Ireland. Children admitted for NIC (study group, n = 103) were compared with children who did not require NIC or who required special care only for up to three days (comparison group, n = 122).

Outcome measures
Health outcomes were measured using the Health Status Questionnaire, health service usage by parent report and family functioning using the PedsQL™ Family Impact Module.

Results: LPIs who required NIC revealed similar health outcomes at three years in comparison to those who did not. Despite this, more parents of LPIs who required NIC reported visiting their GP and medical specialists during their child's third year of life. Differences in family functioning were also observed with mothers of LPIs who required NIC reporting, significantly lower levels of social and physical functioning, increased difficulties with communication and increased levels of worry.

Conclusions: LPIs were observed to have similar health outcomes at three years of age regardless of NIC requirement. The increase in GP and medical specialist visits and family functioning difficulties observed among those infants who required NIC merits further investigation.

Abbreviations: LPI, late preterm infant; NIC, neonatal intensive care; HSQ, Health Status Questionnaire; GP, general practitioner

Behavioural outcomes at 3 years of age among late preterm infants admitted to neonatal intensive care: a cohort study

Objective: Examine the behavioural outcomes at age 3 years of late preterm infants (LPIs) who were admitted to neonatal intensive care (NIC) in comparison with LPIs who were not admitted.
Method: This cohort study prospectively recruited 225 children born late preterm (34–36+6 weeks gestation) in 2006 in Northern Ireland, now aged 3 years. Two groups were compared: LPIs who received NIC (study; n=103) and LPIs who did not receive NIC (control; n=122). Parents/guardians completed the Child Behaviour Checklist/1½-5. Descriptive maternal and infant data were also collected.
Results: As expected LPI children admitted to NIC had higher medical risk than the non-admitted comparison group (increased caesarean section, born at earlier gestation, lower birth weight and an episode of resuscitation at birth). LPIs admitted to NIC scored higher on the Child Behaviour Checklist/1½-5 compared with those who were not admitted indicating more behavioural problems; this was statistically significant for the Aggressive Behaviour Subscale (z=−2.36) and the Externalising Problems Scale (z=−2.42). The group difference on the Externalising Problems Scale was no longer significant after controlling for gender, gestational age and deprivation score.
Conclusions: This study provides valuable data on the behaviour at age 3 years of LPIs admitted to NIC compared with LPIs not admitted to NIC. Further research would be beneficial to explore medical and psychosocial explanations for observed differences between groups using large prospective cohort studies.