Skip to main content

Advertising Disclaimer »

Main menu

  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers
  • Other Publications
    • American Academy of Pediatrics

User menu

  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Academy of Pediatrics

AAP Gateway

Advanced Search

AAP Logo

  • Log in
  • My Cart
  • Journals
    • Pediatrics
    • Hospital Pediatrics
    • Pediatrics in Review
    • NeoReviews
    • AAP Grand Rounds
    • AAP News
  • Authors/Reviewers
    • Submit Manuscript
    • Author Guidelines
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Open Access
    • Editorial Policies
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Online First
    • Archive
    • Blogs
    • Topic/Program Collections
    • AAP Meeting Abstracts
  • Pediatric Collections
    • COVID-19
    • Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health
    • More Collections...
  • AAP Policy
  • Supplements
  • Multimedia
    • Video Abstracts
    • Pediatrics On Call Podcast
  • Subscribe
  • Alerts
  • Careers

Discover Pediatric Collections on COVID-19 and Racism and Its Effects on Pediatric Health

American Academy of Pediatrics
Article

Self-Reported Adolescent Health Status of Extremely Low Birth Weight Children Born 1992–1995

Maureen Hack, Mark Schluchter, Christopher B. Forrest, H. Gerry Taylor, Dennis Drotar, Grayson Holmbeck, Eric Youngstrom, Seunghee Margevicius and Laura Andreias
Pediatrics July 2012, 130 (1) 46-53; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-3402
Maureen Hack
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Mark Schluchter
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher B. Forrest
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
H. Gerry Taylor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dennis Drotar
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Grayson Holmbeck
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eric Youngstrom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Seunghee Margevicius
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Laura Andreias
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • Comments
Loading
Download PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the self-reported health of extremely low birth weight (ELBW, <1 kg) adolescents with that of normal birth weight (NBW) controls and the children’s assessments of their general health at ages 8 versus 14 years.

METHODS: One hundred sixty-eight ELBW children and 115 NBW controls of similar gender and sociodemographic status completed the Child Health and Illness Profile–Adolescent Edition at age 14 years. It includes 6 domains: Satisfaction, Comfort, Resilience, Risk Avoidance, Achievement, and Disorders. At age 8 years, the children had completed the Child Health and Illness Profile–Child Edition. Results were compared between ELBW and NBW subjects adjusting for gender and sociodemographic status.

RESULTS: ELBW adolescents rated their health similar to that of NBW adolescents in the domains of Satisfaction, Comfort, Resilience, Achievement and Disorders but reported more Risk Avoidance (effect size [ES] 0.6, P < .001). In the subdomain of Resilience, they also noted less physical activity (ES −0.58, P < .001), and in the subdomain of Disorders, more long-term surgical (ES −0.49) and psychosocial disorders (ES −0.49; both P < .01). Both ELBW and NBW children reported a decrease in general health between ages 8 and 14 years, which did not differ significantly between groups.

CONCLUSIONS: ELBW adolescents report similar health and well-being compared with NBW controls but greater risk avoidance. Both ELBW and NBW children rate their general health to be poorer at age 14 than at age 8 years, possibly due to age-related developmental changes.

KEY WORDS
  • preterm
  • self-reported health
  • adolescent
  • extremely low birth weight
  • Abbreviations:
    CHIP-AE —
    Child Health and Illness Profile–Adolescent Edition
    CHIP-CE —
    Child Health and Illness Profile–Child Edition
    CI —
    confidence interval
    ELBW —
    extremely low birth weight
    ES —
    effect size
    NBW —
    normal birth weight
    SES —
    sociodemographic status
  • What’s Known on This Subject:

    Previous cohorts of extremely low birth weight adolescents have assessed their health status similar to that of normal birth weight controls.

    What This Study Adds:

    Extremely low birth weight adolescents born in the 1990s assess their health similar to controls but report less risk taking. Extremely low and normal birth weight children rate their health to be poorer at 8 than at 14 years.

    The increased survival of preterm children has led to an interest in their long-term outcomes over and above those pertaining to neurosensory and cognitive sequelae.1 During childhood and adolescence, in addition to objective measures of health, subjective physical, psychological, and social aspects of health become important measures.2 We recently reported on the self-perceived health and well-being at age 8 years of extremely low birth weight children (ELBW; <1 kg) born in 1992–1995 compared with normal birth weight (NBW) controls and the children’s perspective of their health compared with that of their parents.3 Despite higher rates of chronic conditions, 8-year-old ELBW children rated their health similar to controls, whereas their parents reported poorer health for their children compared with parents of controls. Physical, emotional, and social developmental changes during adolescence may have important effects on health. These may be associated with declines in certain aspects of health (eg, physical activity and family connectedness), whereas other aspects of health may become stronger (eg, peer relations). We thus sought to examine the perspective of the health and well-being of the ELBW children at age 14 years compared with NBW controls and compared general health to reports at 8 years. Based on our findings at 8 years3 and on self-reports of preterm adolescents born in the 1980s,4–6 we hypothesized that the self-perception of health of ELBW children born in the 1990s would not differ from that of their NBW peers; that their self-perception of health would be related to both biomedical and sociodemographic factors, and that the children would rate their general health worse at age 14 than at age 8 years.3

    Methods

    ELBW Cohort

    The population included survivors of a cohort of 344 ELBW children admitted to the NICU at Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio, during 1992–1995. Thirteen children, including 10 with major malformations, 2 with AIDS, and 1 with tuberous sclerosis, were excluded. Of the remaining 331 children, 238 (72%) survived, of whom 219 (92%) were followed to 8 years and 181 (76%) to 14 years. At this time, 168 (71%) completed the Child Health and Illness Profile–Adolescent Edition (CHIP-AE) questionnaire.7 The 13 children who did not complete the questionnaire, compared with the 168 children who did, included more boys (10 [77%] vs 60 [36%]) and significantly higher rates of neurosensory impairments (8 [62%] vs 23 [14%]) and subnormal (<70) IQ (12 [92%] vs 20 [12%]).8 Similarly, the surviving birth cohort of 70 children who did not complete the questionnaire, included more boys (41 [59%] vs 60 [36%]) but did not differ in sociodemographic descriptors (socioeconomic status [SES]), birth weight, gestational age, or rates of neonatal cerebral ultrasound abnormality. At age 8 years, 202 children had completed the Child Health and Illness Profile–Child Edition (CHIP-CE).9 The 168 children who completed the CHIP-AE at age 14 did not differ in SES, birth data, gender, or rates of subnormal IQ (13 [8%] vs 3 [9%]) from the 34 children who did not complete the CHIP-AE.

    Comparison Group of NBW Children

    An NBW group of 176 children born at term gestation (>36 weeks) was recruited at age 8 years from the same schools as the ELBW children and of the same gender, race, and age within 3 months. Of these children, 115 (65%) were followed to age 14 years, all of whom completed the CHIP-AE questionnaire. They did not differ from the 61 children not followed in maternal SES, gender, or subnormal 8-year IQ.

    Study Protocol

    At 14 years, the primary caregiver, usually the mother, was interviewed concerning the child’s health. The child was interviewed and underwent psychometric testing.10

    The primary outcome measure of this report, the CHIP-AE, is a multidimensional adolescent self-report instrument developed for children aged 11 to 21 years. It includes 150 items related to perceived health, functioning, and well-being and 46 disease- or injury-specific questions.7 The most common recall period is the past 4 weeks. The questions are organized into 20 subdomains and 6 conceptually based domains (Table 1): (1) Satisfaction, which includes items concerning self-worth and satisfaction with one’s health; (2) Comfort, which includes physically and emotionally experienced feelings and limitations in activity; (3) Resilience, which includes states and behaviors that promote health, including social problem solving, physical activity, home safety, and health and family involvement; (4) Risk avoidance, which includes avoidance of individual risks, behaviors that may disrupt social development and subsequent health, and influences of peers who are involved in risky behaviors; (5) Achievement, which includes both academic achievement in school and work performance; and (6) Disorders, which include biomedically defined states of ill health, injuries, and impairments. Seventy percent of items had to be completed for domain and subdomain scores to be calculated. Higher scores indicate better health and well-being. All the domains have internal consistency reliability of ≥0.70 and 1-week test-retest reliability of >0.60. The CHIP-AE has moderate to high correlations with other measures that assess single domains of health and can discriminate “well” respondents from those with “illness” such as asthma and other chronic conditions.11,12 The questionnaire is self-administered and takes 20 minutes to complete. If a child had difficulty reading or understanding specific questions, the research assistant would help by reading or explaining them. At 8 years, the children completed the CHIP-CE, a conceptually similar instrument based on the CHIP-AE3,9 and underwent IQ testing and neurologic, vision, and hearing testing.8

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    TABLE 1

    Description of CHIP-AE Domains and Subdomains

    The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of University Hospitals of Cleveland, Case Medical Center, and written informed consent provided by parents with signed assent provided by their children.

    Data Analysis

    Univariate comparisons between the ELBW and NBW groups were made with the use of the Student’s t test for continuous variables and the χ2 test or Fisher’s exact test for discrete variables. We also examined outcomes after excluding subjects with neurosensory impairments. Domain and subdomain scores of the VLBW and NBW subjects were compared and effect sizes (calculated as the mean difference between VLBW and NBW scores, adjusted for SES, race, and gender, divided by the SD of the NBW group). Because of the known effects of SES and gender on health and behavior, we controlled for these factors in all analyses. In additional multivariable analyses adjusting for birth weight status (ELBW versus NBW) and SES, we considered the separate effects of neurosensory impairment and the 8-year CHIP-CE scores. Sample sizes of 168 ELBW and 115 NBW children provided 80% power to detect effect sizes of .42 between groups using a 2-sided t test with significance level of .01 and 80% power to detect differences in binary proportions of 2% vs 13%, 5% vs 19%, 10% vs 26%, or 15% vs 33%, by using a χ2 test.

    Although the CHIP-CE and CHIP-AE are conceptually similar, their format, wording, and number of items differ, mainly because of developmental appropriateness. Even for questions that are similar, the majority of responses in the CHIP-CE range from “never” to “always” on a 5-point Likert scale, whereas CHIP-AE responses range from “no days” to “15–28 days” on a 4-point scale. We thus used the only question with identical wording and format at both ages to examine changes in health perception between ages 8 and 14 years. This concerns general health with Likert responses ranging from excellent (5), to very good (4), good (3), fair (2), and poor (1), Paired t tests were used to compare the mean score of this question between ages 8 and 14 years for ELBW and NBW children separately. Multiple linear regression analysis compared the changes in general health between the ELBW and NBW groups, adjusting for SES, race, and gender.

    SES was defined as a mean of the sample z-scores of years of maternal education and median family income according to the 2000 Census tract of the family’s neighborhood. SPSS version 19 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL) and SAS version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC) were used for the analyses. Two-sided t tests were used with a value of P < .01 considered statistically significant to account for multiple comparisons.

    Results

    Demographic, Birth Data, and 14-Year Outcomes

    Maternal sociodemographic descriptors between the ELBW and NBW children did not differ significantly (Table 2). Twenty-three ELBW children had neurosensory impairments. Significantly more ELBW than NBW adolescents were enrolled in Individualized Education Programs and received Supplemental Security Income.

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    TABLE 2

    Maternal Demographic Risk Factors, Perinatal Data, and 14-Year Outcomes

    Comparison of the Mean CHIP-AE Domain and Subdomain Scores Between ELBW and NBW Children

    ELBW children did not differ significantly from NBW children in the domains of Satisfaction, Comfort, Resilience, Achievement, or Disorders. However, they had significantly higher scores in the domain of Risk avoidance (ie, fewer risk behaviors) than NBW children (effect size [ES] 0.60) (Table 3). The findings were similar after excluding children with neurosensory disorders (data not shown). The greater risk avoidance among the ELBW children pertained to all 3 subdomains of risk (all P < .001). Of the individual risks, fewer ELBW children reported alcohol and marijuana use, although these differences were not considered significant at P < .01). Thirty-two (18%) ELBW vs 31 (27%) NBW children reported ever drinking beer or wine (P = .013) and 3 (2%) vs 10 (12%), respectively, ever using marijuana (P = .030). Neither group admitted to ever using cocaine or crack. Fewer ELBW than NBW children reported ever having sexual intercourse (18 [11%] vs 29 [25%], P < .001). There was no difference between groups in ever smoking (11 [7%] ELBW vs 11 [10%] NBW). Of the Threats to achievement, significantly fewer ELBW than NBW children reported ever driving a car, doing something risky or dangerous on a dare, breaking parental rules, or having trouble getting along with teachers. Of the Peer influences, significantly fewer ELBW than NBW children reported having friends who smoked, drank alcohol, used marijuana, or had sexual intercourse.

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    TABLE 3

    CHIP-AE Domain and Subdomain Scores and Effect Sizes for Differences in These Scores for ELBW Compared With NBW Children at 14 Yearsa

    The domain of Resilience did not differ significantly between ELBW and NBW children. However, ELBW children had significantly lower scores in the subdomain of Physical activity (ES −0.58) (ie, less physical activity). There were no differences between groups in the Disorders domain, but at the subdomain level, ELBW children reported significantly more Long-term Surgical disorders (ES −0.49). ELBW children also had lower scores in the subdomain of Psychosocial disorders (ES −0.49), mainly due to being told by a physician that they had a learning disability (36 [21%] ELBW vs 107 [7%] NBW children, P = .003).

    Significant Correlates of the Domains and Subdomains of Health

    In the multivariable analyses, the Risk avoidance domain was significantly associated with birth weight status (ELBW versus NBW, β = .19, 95% confidence interval [CI] .13–.26, and white race, β = .17, 95% CI .09–.25). Significant correlates of decreased Physical activity included lower SES (β = −.20, 95% CI −.34 to −.07), female gender (β = −.45, 95% CI −.66 to −.23), and neurosensory impairment (β = −.95, 95% CI −1.34 to −.56). Long-term Surgical Disorders were associated with neurosensory impairment (β =−.63, 95% CI −.90 to −.36). In the domains of health that did not differ between ELBW and NBW children, higher SES was significantly associated with better Resilience. Female gender was associated with poorer Satisfaction and less Comfort, and white race was associated with more Comfort and more Resilience (data not shown).

    Examination of the association between domains of the 8-year CHIP-CE to the respective domains of the 14-year CHIP-AE, controlling for race, gender, and SES, revealed a significant partial correlation coefficients for Comfort (r = 0.233, P < .001) but not for any of the other domains of health

    Comparison of 8-Year With 14-Year Assessment of General Health Status

    The mean score for the question rating general health did not differ significantly between ELBW and NBW children at either age 8 or 14 years (Table 4). Both groups rated their health significantly poorer at 14 than at 8 years. Multiple linear regression analysis adjusting for race, gender, and SES revealed that these changes did not differ significantly between the ELBW and NBW children in analyses of both genders combined (β = −.14, 95% CI .19 to −.47) or in gender-specific analyses.

    View this table:
    • View inline
    • View popup
    TABLE 4

    General Health at Age 8 and 14 Years

    Discussion

    We sought to examine the self-perception of health and well-being of adolescent ELBW children born in the 1990s compared with NBW controls according to a multidimensional questionnaire, the CHIP-AE.7 The major difference pertained to the Risk avoidance domain with ELBW children reporting significantly more risk avoidance, ie, less risk taking, than NBW controls. This included fewer individual risks, fewer threats to achievement and fewer relationships with delinquent peers. There were no differences between groups in the domains of Satisfaction, Comfort, Resilience, or Disorders, although examination of the subdomains revealed significantly less physical activity and more long-term surgical and psychosocial disorders compared with their peers. Both ELBW and NBW children reported a decrease in general health between age 8 and 14 years, which did not differ between groups.

    Our results are in agreement with reports of ELBW adolescents and young adults born before the 1990s who, in general, considered their health and well-being to be similar to that of their peers, despite higher rates of chronic medical and neurodevelopmental problems.4–6,13

    The rates of general health and risk taking among our NBW subjects are in the range of normative populations. Sixty nine percent of our NBW adolescents reported their health to be very good or excellent, similar to a normative prevalence of 63%.14 In a predominantly urban black population aged 14 years, lifetime rates of wine or beer use were 26%; of marijuana, 7%; and of smoking, 13%.15 In 2008, nationally in the United States, rates higher than ours were reported among children in the eighth grade, with lifetime use of any alcohol, 38.9%; cigarette use, 20.5%; and marijuana use, 14.6%.16

    With the exception of the increased risk avoidance reported by the ELBW children at 14 years, our current findings are similar to those we reported for the same population at 8 years.3 However, the potential types of risk taking behavior change during the transition from childhood to adolescence. At 8 years. they include “getting into trouble at school” and “picking on, or threatening to hurt other children.”9 At 14 years. they include individual risks such as alcohol use and sexual activities.7

    The findings of less risk taking among the ELBW adolescents are in agreement with reports of preterm young adults, which include less risk taking, delinquent behavior, and association with delinquent peers.17–21 The reasons for less risk taking are not fully understood but may include emotional problems. In normative populations, children with learning disabilities22 or chronic conditions are more, rather than less, likely to smoke and use marijuana.23 We previously reported an increase in parent protection at age 8 years.24 Relative social isolation of children with disabilities and increased parental supervision may be associated with diminished opportunities for risk taking.25,26 However, our findings of decreased risk taking among the ELBW children were evident even after excluding the children with neurosensory impairments.

    Global assessment of health is considered to be a good predictor of mortality and morbidity in adults.27,28 A decrease in self-reported health between childhood and adolescence has previously been reported in normative populations, although, contrary to our findings, others note a greater decline for girls than boys.29–31 The decrease in our ELBW and NBW populations cannot be explained by changes in rates of chronic conditions, which remained fairly stable.32 It could possibly be due to adolescent changes in expectations and priorities of life and to social influences of peers.33

    Resilience has been defined in preterm studies as optimal cognitive, behavior, health, and growth.34,35 In the CHIP-AE, however, “resilience” pertains to states and behaviors that promote health. The decreased physical activity reported by our ELBW adolescents has previously been reported for preterm young adults36,37 and is considered to be related to poorer motor performance38 and reduced exercise capacity.39 Correlates of decreased physical activity in our population included SES, female gender, and neurosensory impairment. The relationship of SES to physical activity and health includes community resources, health care, and differences in family lifestyle.40–42

    One possible limitation to our study is that there may be inaccuracy in the reporting of physical activities and risk taking.16,43 The reliability of self-reporting of sexual behavior is also questionable.44 Current health may also influence the reporting of health status.45 We had a greater loss to follow-up of males and children with neurologic impairments, which may influence the results. Children with neurologic impairments could potentially rate their health worse than do less-impaired children. Our results revealed a significant association between female gender and poorer satisfaction with health, less comfort, and less physical activity (ie, less exercise). Had more males been included in the study, the scores of satisfaction with health, comfort, and physical activity might have been higher (ie, better health status). However, because we documented a negative association between neurologic impairment and physical activity, inclusion of more neurologically impaired children among the participants might potentially neutralize this effect. Our results are based on self-reports by the youth with no information from parents. Parents tend to report poorer health for their preterm children than the children themselves.3,5,6 In contrast among normative populations, adolescents tend to be less optimistic about their health than are their parents.46,47

    Strengths of our study include the longitudinal design, the relatively good follow-up rate, that the children were followed longitudinally, and that the CHIP-AE provides a comprehensive assessment of health status with components of the broader concept of health advocated by the World Health Organization.48

    Although the ELBW subjects consider their health status to be similar to that of their peers, their persisting high rates of chronic illnesses that we recently reported, including asthma and obesity, together with their decreased physical activity, may not bode well for their future adult health.32 Furthermore, although their greater risk avoidance may be considered an advantage, this may not be a beneficial characteristic during adolescence.49,50 Ongoing surveillance of medical and behavioral health of ELBW adolescents, together with encouragement of a healthy life style, will be necessary to ensure a successful transition to adulthood.51

    Acknowledgments

    We thank Ms Kathy Winter, who coordinated the project and participated in the interview of the parents; Mrs Ellen Durand MA and Mrs Heather Marcinick MA, research assistants, who tested the children and administered the questionnaires; Ms Sheree Hemphill MS, who developed the REDCap database; Mrs Lydia Cartar MA, who participated in the initial data management and analysis; and Mrs Bonnie Tarantino BA and Mr Alpher Torres, who provided clerical assistance.

    Footnotes

      • Accepted March 8, 2012.
    • Address correspondence to Dr Maureen Hack, Rainbow Babies and Children’s Hospital, University Hospitals of Cleveland Case Medical Center, 11100 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44106-6010. E-mail: mxh7{at}case.edu
    • Dr Hack supervised the study and had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis; Drs Hack, Taylor, Forrest, Drotar, Schluchter, Holmbeck, and Youngstrom developed the study concept and design; Drs Hack and Andreias acquired the data; Drs Hack, Schluchter, Taylor, Andreias, Margevicius, and Forrest participated in the analysis, including statistical analysis and interpretation of the data; Dr Hack drafted the first version of the manuscript; and all the co-authors participated in the critical revision of the manuscript and approved its submission for publication.

    • FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

    • FUNDING: Supported by grants R01 HD 39756, M01 RR000, and ULI RR024989 from the National Institute of Health. Funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Saigal S,
      2. Rosenbaum P
      . What matters in the long term: reflections on the context of adult outcomes versus detailed measures in childhood. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2007;12(5):415–422pmid:17707702
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    2. ↵
      1. Topolski TD,
      2. Edwards TC,
      3. Patrick DL
      . Toward youth self-report of health and quality of life in population monitoring. Ambul Pediatr. 2004;4(4 suppl):387–394pmid:15264944
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    3. ↵
      1. Hack M,
      2. Forrest CB,
      3. Schluchter M,
      4. et al
      . Health status of extremely low-birth-weight children at 8 years of age: child and parent perspective. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(10):922–927pmid:21969395
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Gray R,
      2. Petrou S,
      3. Hockley C,
      4. Gardner F
      . Self-reported health status and health-related quality of life of teenagers who were born before 29 weeks’ gestational age. Pediatrics. 2007;120(1). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/120/1/e86pmid:17606553
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    5. ↵
      1. Indredavik MS,
      2. Vik T,
      3. Heyerdahl S,
      4. Romundstad P,
      5. Brubakk A-M
      . Low-birthweight adolescents: quality of life and parent-child relations. Acta Paediatr. 2005;94(9):1295–1302pmid:16278996
      OpenUrlPubMed
    6. ↵
      1. Saigal S,
      2. Feeny D,
      3. Rosenbaum P,
      4. Furlong W,
      5. Burrows E,
      6. Stoskopf B
      . Self-perceived health status and health-related quality of life of extremely low-birth-weight infants at adolescence. JAMA. 1996;276(6):453–459pmid:8691552
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Starfield B,
      2. Riley AW,
      3. Green BF,
      4. et al
      . The adolescent child health and illness profile. A population-based measure of health. Med Care. 1995;33(5):553–566pmid:7739277
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Kaufman A,
      2. Applegate B
      . Short forms of K-ABC Mental Processing and Achievement Scales at age 4 to 12-1/2 years for clinical and screening purposes. J Clin Child Psychol. 1988;17:359–369
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    9. ↵
      1. Riley AW,
      2. Forrest CB,
      3. Rebok GW,
      4. et al
      . The Child Report form of the CHIP-Child Edition: reliability and validity. Med Care. 2004;42(3):221–231pmid:15076821
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. ↵
      1. Psychological Corporation
      . Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1999
    11. ↵
      1. Starfield B,
      2. Forrest CB,
      3. Ryan SA,
      4. Riley AW,
      5. Ensminger ME,
      6. Green BF
      . Health status of well vs ill adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1996;150(12):1249–1256pmid:8953996
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Forrest CB,
      2. Starfield B,
      3. Riley AW,
      4. Kang M
      . The impact of asthma on the health status of adolescents. Pediatrics. 1997;99(2):E1pmid:9099758
      OpenUrl
    13. ↵
      1. Zwicker JG,
      2. Harris SR
      . Quality of life of formerly preterm and very low birth weight infants from preschool age to adulthood: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2008;121(2). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/121/2/e366pmid:18245409
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    14. ↵
      1. Johnson SB,
      2. Wang C
      . Why do adolescents say they are less healthy than their parents think they are? The importance of mental health varies by social class in a nationally representative sample. Pediatrics. 2008;121(2). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/121/2/e307pmid:18245403
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    15. ↵
      1. Delaney-Black V,
      2. Chiodo LM,
      3. Hannigan JH,
      4. et al
      . Just say “I don’t”: lack of concordance between teen report and biological measures of drug use. Pediatrics. 2010;126(5):887–893pmid:20974792
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. ↵
      Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG, Schulenberg JE. Monitoring the Future National Results on Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of Key Findings. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 2008. NIH Publication No. 09-7401
    17. ↵
      1. Hack M,
      2. Flannery DJ,
      3. Schluchter M,
      4. Cartar L,
      5. Borawski E,
      6. Klein N
      . Outcomes in young adulthood for very-low-birth-weight infants. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(3):149–157pmid:11796848
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Cooke RW
      . Health, lifestyle, and quality of life for young adults born very preterm. Arch Dis Child. 2004;89(3):201–206pmid:14977689
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Lindström K,
      2. Lindblad F,
      3. Hjern A
      . Psychiatric morbidity in adolescents and young adults born preterm: a Swedish national cohort study. Pediatrics. 2009;123(1). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/123/1/e47pmid:19117846
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Strang-Karlsson S,
      2. Räikkönen K,
      3. Pesonen AK,
      4. et al
      . Very low birth weight and behavioral symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in young adulthood: the Helsinki study of very-low-birth-weight adults. Am J Psychiatry. 2008;165(10):1345–1353pmid:18628349
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Hille ET,
      2. Dorrepaal C,
      3. Perenboom R,
      4. Gravenhorst JB,
      5. Brand R,
      6. Verloove-Vanhorick SP,
      7. Dutch POPS-19 Collaborative Study Group
      . Social lifestyle, risk-taking behavior, and psychopathology in young adults born very preterm or with a very low birthweight. J Pediatr. 2008;152(6):793–800, 800, e1–e4pmid:18492518
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. ↵
      1. Maag JW,
      2. Irvin DM,
      3. Reid R,
      4. Vasa SF
      . Prevalence and predictors of substance use: a comparison between adolescents with and without learning disabilities. J Learn Disabil. 1994;27(4):223–234pmid:8051503
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. ↵
      1. Surís J-C,
      2. Michaud P-A,
      3. Akre C,
      4. Sawyer SM
      . Health risk behaviors in adolescents with chronic conditions. Pediatrics. 2008;122(5). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/122/5/e1113pmid:18977960
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. ↵
      1. Wightman A,
      2. Schluchter M,
      3. Drotar D,
      4. et al
      . Parental protection of extremely low birth weight children at age 8 years. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2007;28(4):317–326pmid:17700084
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. ↵
      1. Blum RW,
      2. Kelly A,
      3. Ireland M
      . Health-risk behaviors and protective factors among adolescents with mobility impairments and learning and emotional disabilities. J Adolesc Health. 2001;28(6):481–490pmid:11377992
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    23. ↵
      1. Stevens SE,
      2. Steele CA,
      3. Jutai JW,
      4. Kalnins IV,
      5. Bortolussi JA,
      6. Biggar WD
      . Adolescents with physical disabilities: some psychosocial aspects of health. J Adolesc Health. 1996;19(2):157–164pmid:8863089
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. ↵
      1. Case A,
      2. Fertig A,
      3. Paxson C
      . The lasting impact of childhood health and circumstance. J Health Econ. 2005;24(2):365–389pmid:15721050
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. ↵
      1. Idler EL,
      2. Russell LB,
      3. Davis D
      . Survival, functional limitations, and self-rated health in the NHANES I Epidemiological Follow-up Study, 1992. Am J Epidemiol. 2000;152:874–883pmid:11085400
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. ↵
      1. Michel G,
      2. Bisegger C,
      3. Fuhr DC,
      4. Abel T,
      5. KIDSCREEN group
      . Age and gender differences in health-related quality of life of children and adolescents in Europe: a multilevel analysis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(9):1147–1157pmid:19774493
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
      1. Palacio-Vieira JA,
      2. Villalonga-Olives E,
      3. Valderas JM,
      4. et al
      . Changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a population-based sample of children and adolescents after 3 years of follow-up. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(10):1207–1215pmid:18931941
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. ↵
      1. Simon AE,
      2. Chan KS,
      3. Forrest CB
      . Assessment of children’s health-related quality of life in the United States with a multidimensional index. Pediatrics. 2008;121(1). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/121/1/e118pmid:18056290
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    28. ↵
      1. Hack M,
      2. Schluchter M,
      3. Andreias L,
      4. et al
      . Change in prevalence of chronic conditions between childhood and adolescence among extremely low-birth-weight children. JAMA. 2011;306(4):394–401pmid:21791688
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. ↵
      1. Drotar D
      , ed. Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Children and Adolescents. In: Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998
    30. ↵
      1. Bradley RH,
      2. Whiteside L,
      3. Mundfrom DJ,
      4. Casey PH,
      5. Kelleher KJ,
      6. Pope SK
      . Early indications of resilience and their relation to experiences in the home environments of low birthweight, premature children living in poverty. Child Dev. 1994;65(2 Spec No):346–360pmid:8013226
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Msall ME
      . Optimizing early development and understanding trajectories of resiliency after extreme prematurity. Pediatrics. 2009;124(1):387–390pmid:19564325
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    32. ↵
      1. Hack M,
      2. Cartar L,
      3. Schluchter M,
      4. Klein N,
      5. Forrest CB
      . Self-perceived health, functioning and well-being of very low birth weight infants at age 20 years. J Pediatr. 2007;151(6):635–641, 641, e1–e2pmid:18035144
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    33. ↵
      1. Kajantie E,
      2. Strang-Karlsson S,
      3. Hovi P,
      4. et al
      . Adults born at very low birth weight exercise less than their peers born at term. J Pediatr. 2010;157(4):610–616, 616, e1pmid:20493499
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. ↵
      1. Rogers M,
      2. Fay TB,
      3. Whitfield MF,
      4. Tomlinson J,
      5. Grunau RE
      . Aerobic capacity, strength, flexibility, and activity level in unimpaired extremely low birth weight (<or=800 g) survivors at 17 years of age compared with term-born control subjects. Pediatrics. 2005;116(1). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/116/1/e58pmid:15997047
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    35. ↵
      1. Smith LJ,
      2. van Asperen PP,
      3. McKay KO,
      4. Selvadurai H,
      5. Fitzgerald DA
      . Reduced exercise capacity in children born very preterm. Pediatrics. 2008;122(2). Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/122/2/e287pmid:18676514
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    36. ↵
      1. Starfield B,
      2. Riley AW,
      3. Witt WP,
      4. Robertson J
      . Social class gradients in health during adolescence. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56(5):354–361pmid:11964432
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
      1. Newacheck PW,
      2. Hung YY,
      3. Park MJ,
      4. Brindis CD,
      5. Irwin CE Jr
      . Disparities in adolescent health and health care: does socioeconomic status matter? Health Serv Res. 2003;38(5):1235–1252pmid:14596388
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    37. ↵
      1. Sallis JF,
      2. Zakarian JM,
      3. Hovell MF,
      4. Hofstetter CR
      . Ethnic, socioeconomic, and sex differences in physical activity among adolescents. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(2):125–134pmid:8606313
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    38. ↵
      1. Corder K,
      2. van Sluijs EMF,
      3. Goodyer I,
      4. et al
      . Physical activity awareness of British adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(7):603–609pmid:21727272
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    39. ↵
      1. DiClemente RJ,
      2. Sales JM,
      3. Danner F,
      4. Crosby RA
      . Association between sexually transmitted diseases and young adults’ self-reported abstinence. Pediatrics. 2011;127(2):208–213pmid:21199852
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    40. ↵
      1. Dolan P
      . The effect of experience of illness on health state valuations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49(5):551–564pmid:8636729
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    41. ↵
      1. Waters E,
      2. Stewart-Brown S,
      3. Fitzpatrick R
      . Agreement between adolescent self-report and parent reports of health and well-being: results of an epidemiological study. Child Care Health Dev. 2003;29(6):501–509pmid:14616908
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    42. ↵
      1. Upton P,
      2. Lawford J,
      3. Eiser C
      . Parent-child agreement across child health-related quality of life instruments: a review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(6):895–913pmid:18521721
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    43. ↵
      1. World Health Organization
      . Towards a Common Language for Functioning, Disability and Health. ICF. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2002
    44. ↵
      1. Luciana M
      . Cognitive development in children born preterm: implications for theories of brain plasticity following early injury. Dev Psychopathol. 2003;15(4):1017–1047pmid:14984136
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. ↵
      1. Shedler J,
      2. Block J
      . Adolescent drug use and psychological health. A longitudinal inquiry. Am Psychol. 1990;45(5):612–630pmid:2350080
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    46. ↵
      1. Park MJ,
      2. Adams SH,
      3. Irwin CE
      . Health care services and the transition to young adulthood: challenges and opportunities. Acad Pediatr. 2011;11(2):115–122
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    • Copyright © 2012 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
    PreviousNext
    Back to top

    Advertising Disclaimer »

    In this issue

    Pediatrics
    Vol. 130, Issue 1
    1 Jul 2012
    • Table of Contents
    • Index by author
    View this article with LENS
    PreviousNext
    Email Article

    Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Academy of Pediatrics.

    NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

    Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
    Self-Reported Adolescent Health Status of Extremely Low Birth Weight Children Born 1992–1995
    (Your Name) has sent you a message from American Academy of Pediatrics
    (Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Academy of Pediatrics web site.
    CAPTCHA
    This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
    Request Permissions
    Article Alerts
    Log in
    You will be redirected to aap.org to login or to create your account.
    Or Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
    Citation Tools
    Self-Reported Adolescent Health Status of Extremely Low Birth Weight Children Born 1992–1995
    Maureen Hack, Mark Schluchter, Christopher B. Forrest, H. Gerry Taylor, Dennis Drotar, Grayson Holmbeck, Eric Youngstrom, Seunghee Margevicius, Laura Andreias
    Pediatrics Jul 2012, 130 (1) 46-53; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-3402

    Citation Manager Formats

    • BibTeX
    • Bookends
    • EasyBib
    • EndNote (tagged)
    • EndNote 8 (xml)
    • Medlars
    • Mendeley
    • Papers
    • RefWorks Tagged
    • Ref Manager
    • RIS
    • Zotero
    Share
    Self-Reported Adolescent Health Status of Extremely Low Birth Weight Children Born 1992–1995
    Maureen Hack, Mark Schluchter, Christopher B. Forrest, H. Gerry Taylor, Dennis Drotar, Grayson Holmbeck, Eric Youngstrom, Seunghee Margevicius, Laura Andreias
    Pediatrics Jul 2012, 130 (1) 46-53; DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-3402
    del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
    Print
    Download PDF
    Insight Alerts
    • Table of Contents

    Jump to section

    • Article
      • Abstract
      • Methods
      • Data Analysis
      • Results
      • Discussion
      • Acknowledgments
      • Footnotes
      • References
    • Figures & Data
    • Info & Metrics
    • Comments

    Related Articles

    • No related articles found.
    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

    Cited By...

    • NICU Follow-up Care: The Developmental and Advocacy Perspectives
    • Google Scholar

    More in this TOC Section

    • Applications of Artificial Intelligence for Retinopathy of Prematurity Screening
    • Phenobarbital and Clonidine as Secondary Medications for Neonatal Opioid Withdrawal Syndrome
    • Severe Acute Neurologic Involvement in Children With Hemolytic-Uremic Syndrome
    Show more Article

    Similar Articles

    Subjects

    • Fetus/Newborn Infant
      • Fetus/Newborn Infant
    • Adolescent Health/Medicine
      • Adolescent Health/Medicine
    • Journal Info
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Policies
    • Overview
    • Licensing Information
    • Authors/Reviewers
    • Author Guidelines
    • Submit My Manuscript
    • Open Access
    • Reviewer Guidelines
    • Librarians
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Usage Stats
    • Support
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
    • Resources
    • Media Kit
    • About
    • International Access
    • Terms of Use
    • Privacy Statement
    • FAQ
    • AAP.org
    • shopAAP
    • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Instagram
    • Visit American Academy of Pediatrics on Facebook
    • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Twitter
    • Follow American Academy of Pediatrics on Youtube
    • RSS
    American Academy of Pediatrics

    © 2021 American Academy of Pediatrics