Abstract
This study examined the self-reported quality of life in an international cohort of 11-year-old children with birth weights of 500 to 1250 g.
Data on health-related quality of life are sparse for children who were born very preterm during the past 2 decades and limited to single countries.1,2 We studied the self-reported quality of life in an international cohort of 11-year-old children with birth weights of 500 to 1250 g.
Methods
From May 7, 2011, to May 27, 2016, we performed an 11-year follow-up of Canadian, Australian, British, and Swedish participants in the Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity trial.3 As reported previously,3 neonatal caffeine therapy was associated with a reduced risk of motor impairment at middle school age. During this 11-year follow-up, the children were invited to complete Kidscreen-52, a generic, health-related quality-of-life questionnaire for children and adolescents.4,5 The research ethics boards of all 13 centers where this instrument was administered (McMaster University Medical Center, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Sunnybrook Health Sciences Center, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Mercy Hospital for Women, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Foothills Hospital and Alberta Children’s Hospital, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; St. Boniface Hospital, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; Astrid Lindgren Children’s Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; The James Cook University Hospital; Middlesborough, UK; Royal Maternity Hospital, Belfast, UK; Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle, UK; and Northern Neonatal Initiatives, UK) approved the present study. Written informed consent was obtained from a parent or guardian of each child, and assent was obtained from the child when appropriate.
Kidscreen-52 T scores were computed for each of the 10 dimensions of health-related quality of life (physical and psychological well-being, moods and emotions, self-perception, autonomy, parent relations and home life, financial resources, social support and peers, school environment, and bullying). The mean (SD) dimension T score is 50 (10) in the European reference populations. Higher T scores indicate better quality of life.4,5 Mean differences between the T scores of the caffeine and placebo groups were adjusted for center with multiple linear regression. In post hoc analyses, we examined regional differences and the associations between motor impairment and Kidscreen-52 T scores.
Results
Kidscreen-52 questionnaires were completed by 821 of the 944 (87.0%) children (median [IQR] age, 11.4 [11.1 to 11.9] years); 420 male (51.2%) and 401 (48.8%) female, who had contributed data for the main functional outcomes at middle school age. 3 The demographics of these children were similar to those of the main 11-year follow-up cohort.3 Although fewer children had a motor impairment after caffeine exposure than after placebo therapy, the mean Kidscreen-52 T scores did not differ significantly between the 2 groups for 9 of the 10 dimensions and favored the placebo group for 1 dimension (Table 1). In post hoc analyses, children with motor impairment had significantly worse mean T scores than those without impairment for the following 5 dimensions: physical well-being (mean difference, −2.3; 95% CI, −3.7 to −0.8; P = .002), moods and emotions (mean difference, −1.8; 95% CI, −3.4 to −0.2; P = .03), autonomy (mean difference, −2.2; 95% CI, −3.8 to −0.7; P = .006), financial resources (mean difference, −2.7; 95% CI, −4.4 to −1.1; P = .001), and school environment (mean difference, −2.1; 95% CI, −3.9 to −0.3; P = .02).
Table 1. Kidscreen-52 Dimension T Scores by Treatment Group .
| Kidscreen-52 Dimensionsa | Caffeineb | Placebob | Unadjusted Mean Difference (95% CI) | Mean Difference Adjusted for Center (95% CI) | P Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of Patients | T Score, Mean (SD) | No. of Patients | T Score, Mean (SD) | ||||
| Physical well-being | 402 | 49.7 (8.5) | 411 | 50.4 (9.0) | −0.7 (−1.9 to 0.5) | −0.7 (−1.9 to 0.5) | .24 |
| Psychological well-being | 403 | 52.1 (9.2) | 412 | 52.9 (8.9) | −0.8 (−2.0 to 0.4) | −0.8 (−2.1 to 0.4) | .17 |
| Moods and emotions | 404 | 51.6 (9.5) | 412 | 52.2 (10.3) | −0.5 (−1.9 to 0.8) | −0.5 (−1.8 to 0.8) | .46 |
| Self-perception | 404 | 55.3 (10.4) | 412 | 56.3 (9.9) | −1.1 (−2.5 to 0.3) | −1.1 (−2.4 to 0.3) | .13 |
| Autonomy | 405 | 50.2 (9.6) | 410 | 50.6 (9.8) | −0.4 (−1.8 to 0.9) | −0.5 (−1.7 to 0.8) | .49 |
| Parent relations and home life | 403 | 52.0 (9.7) | 409 | 53.2 (9.3) | −1.2 (−2.5 to 0.1) | −1.2 (−2.4 to 0.1) | .07 |
| Financial resources | 396 | 46.2 (10.1) | 397 | 47.3 (10.1) | −1.1 (−2.5 to 0.3) | −1.1 (−2.5 to 0.2) | .11 |
| Social support and peers | 400 | 50.8 (11.2) | 409 | 52.6 (10.7) | −1.9 (−3.4 to −0.3) | −1.9 (−3.3 to −0.4) | .01 |
| School environment | 400 | 55.6 (10.7) | 408 | 56.8 (11.4) | −1.2 (−2.8 to 0.3) | −1.2 (−2.7 to 0.3) | .11 |
| Social acceptance (bullying) | 403 | 47.3 (11.0) | 407 | 47.3 (11.6) | 0.0 (−1.6 to 1.5) | −0.1 (−1.6 to 1.5) | .95 |
The Kidscreen-52 contains 52 items with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 7 items per dimension. The mean (SD) dimension T score is 50 (10) in the European reference populations.4 Higher T scores indicate better quality of life.
These data are for the 817 children with at least one Kidscreen-52 T score in each of the treatment groups.
When compared with the Kidscreen-52 reference population, the mean dimension T scores of the entire study cohort were significantly decreased only for financial resources (mean difference, −3.2; 95% CI, −3.9 to −2.5; P < .001) and social acceptance (bullying) (mean difference, −2.7; 95% CI, −3.5 to −1.9; P < .001).
A total of 755 participants were residents of Canada or Australia. Demographic differences between the participants in Australia and Canada included less formal caregiver education, less favorable family arrangements, and greater reliance on government financial support in Australia. However, even after covariate adjustment, the mean Kidscreen-52 T scores remained significantly lower for Australian than Canadian children for 5 of the 10 dimensions (Table 2).
Table 2. Kidscreen-52 Dimension T Scores by Region.
| Kidscreen-52 Dimensionsa | Australiab | Canadab | Unadjusted Mean Difference (95% CI) | Adjusted Mean Difference (95% CI)c | P Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of Patients | T Score, Mean (SD) | No. of Patients | T Score, Mean (SD) | ||||
| Physical well-being | 347 | 49.7 (9.0) | 400 | 50.3 (8.6) | −0.6 (−1.9 to 0.7) | −0.5 (−1.9 to 1.0) | .53 |
| Psychological well-being | 345 | 51.9 (9.1) | 404 | 52.7 (8.9) | −0.9 (−2.2 to 0.5) | −1.0 (−2.5 to 0.5) | .18 |
| Moods and emotions | 347 | 50.0 (9.4) | 403 | 53.1 (9.9) | −3.1 (−4.5 to −1.7) | −2.6 (−4.1 to −1.0) | .001 |
| Self-perception | 349 | 54.2 (10.1) | 401 | 56.9 (10.0) | −2.6 (−4.1 to −1.2) | −2.7 (−4.3 to −1.0) | .001 |
| Autonomy | 348 | 49.1 (9.2) | 402 | 50.9 (9.9) | −1.9 (−3.3 to −0.5) | −2.7 (−4.3 to −1.2) | <.001 |
| Parent relations and home life | 348 | 51.6 (9.5) | 398 | 53.0 (9.5) | −1.3 (−3.1 to 0.0) | −1.6 (−3.1 to 0.0) | .05 |
| Financial resources | 337 | 46.0 (9.7) | 392 | 46.4 (10.4) | −0.5 (−1.9 to 1.0) | −0.3 (−1.9 to 1.4) | .73 |
| Social support and peers | 345 | 50.6 (10.7) | 398 | 52.2 (10.9) | −1.6 (−3.2 to −0.1) | −2.5 (−4.2 to −0.7) | .007 |
| School environment | 346 | 54.9 (11.4) | 397 | 57.1 (10.5) | −2.2 (−3.8 to −0.6) | −1.9 (−3.7 to −0.1) | .03 |
| Social acceptance (bullying) | 348 | 46.2 (11.1) | 396 | 47.9 (11.1) | −1.7 (−3.3 to −0.1) | −1.0 (−2.8 to 0.8) | .29 |
The Kidscreen-52 contains 52 items with a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 7 items per dimension. The mean (SD) dimension T score is 50 (10) in the European reference populations.4 Higher T scores indicate better quality of life.
These data are for the 755 children with at least 1 Kidscreen-52 T score who were residents of Australia or Canada.
Adjusted for sex, motor impairment, race, caregiver’s educational level, family arrangement, and main source of financial support. Motor impairment was defined as total standard scores corresponding to the fifth percentile or less for the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition.3
Discussion
The 11-year follow-up of participants in the Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity trial provided the opportunity to measure the self-reported quality of life in a large and recent international cohort of children who were born very preterm. Caffeine therapy had no significant effects on most aspects of health-related quality of life. The single adverse caffeine effect on perceptions about peer support was small and may have arisen by chance.
In post hoc analyses, motor impairment was associated with reduced quality-of-life scores in multiple dimensions. The effect sizes were comparable to those reported for children with special health care needs.4 In addition, we observed consistent but unexplained small differences between the Canadian and Australian children that require future investigation in cross-cultural quality-of-life studies after very preterm birth.6
References
- 1.Natalucci G, Bucher HU, Von Rhein M, Borradori Tolsa C, Latal B, Adams M. Population based report on health related quality of life in adolescents born very preterm. Early Hum Dev. 2017;104:7-12. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2016.11.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gire C, Resseguier N, Brévaut-Malaty V, et al. ; GPQoL study Group . Quality of life of extremely preterm school-age children without major handicap: a cross-sectional observational study. [published online June 30, 2018]. Arch Dis Child. 2018;archdischild-2018-315046. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2018-315046 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Schmidt B, Roberts RS, Anderson PJ, et al. ; Caffeine for Apnea of Prematurity (CAP) Trial Group . Academic performance, motor function, and behavior 11 years after neonatal caffeine citrate therapy for apnea of prematurity: an 11-year follow-up of the CAP randomized clinical trial. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(6):564-572. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.0238 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Ravens-Sieberer U, Herdman M, Devine J, et al. . The European KIDSCREEN approach to measure quality of life and well-being in children: development, current application, and future advances. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(3):791-803. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013-0428-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Kidscreen. https://www.kidscreen.org/english/questionnaires/kidscreen-52-long-version/. Accessed August 3, 2018.
- 6.Jorm AF, Ryan SM. Cross-national and historical differences in subjective well-being. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43(2):330-340. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyt188 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]