Quality of Life of Formerly Preterm and Very Low Birth Weight Infants From Preschool Age to Adulthood: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal of this systematic review was to synthesize studies that examined the health-related quality of life of preschool- and school-aged children, adolescents, and young adults who were born preterm and/or at very low birth weight. METHODS: We searched 7 databases up to September 2006 (Medline, PubMed, Embase, EBM Reviews, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, and the Educational Resource Information Center) as well as gray literature sources. We independently screened studies and included them only if a quality-of-life outcome measure was used and findings compared preterm, very low birth weight, or extremely low birth weight infants with term or normal birth weight peers. We independently assessed the methodologic quality of each study by using criteria adapted from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. RESULTS: Fifteen cohort or cross-sectional studies met the review criteria. In 6 studies of preschool-aged children, differences were found between study and control groups, suggesting that many preschool children born preterm or at very low birth weight perform more poorly than their peers in physical, emotional, and/or social functioning. Extremely low birth weight school-aged children had lower health utility scores compared with their peers, and similar results were found for adolescents. Parents of preterm and very low birth weight teens noted significantly poorer performance in their child's global health, behavior, and physical functioning, whereas the teenagers themselves did not. In young adulthood, differences in physical functioning remained, but subjective quality of life was similar to normal birth weight peers. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of preterm birth/very low birth weight on health-related quality of life seem to diminish over time, which possibly reflects issues related to a child's report versus a parent-proxy report, differing definitions of health-related quality of life, and adaptation of individuals over time, versus true change in health-related quality of life.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".