Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Feb 19;16(2):e0247527. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247527

Patterns of respiratory health services utilization from birth to 5 years of children who experienced adverse birth outcomes

Jesus Serrano-Lomelin 1, Anne Hicks 2, Manoj Kumar 2, David W Johnson 3, Radha Chari 1, Alvaro Osornio-Vargas 2, Susan Crawford 4, Jeffrey Bakal 4, Maria B Ospina 1,*
Editor: Harald Ehrhardt5
PMCID: PMC7895380  PMID: 33606848

Abstract

Introduction

Adverse birth outcomes have important consequences for future lung health. We evaluated patterns of respiratory health services utilization in early childhood among children born preterm (PTB), small and large for gestational age at term (SGA and LGA, respectively), and appropriate-for-gestational age at term.

Materials and methods

We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using administrative health data of all singleton live births in Alberta, Canada between 2005–2010. Data on hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits from birth to 5 years were collected for asthma, bronchitis, bronchiolitis, croup, influenza, pneumonia, and other acute upper and lower respiratory tract infections (other URTI and other LRTI, respectively). Adjusted rate ratios were estimated for respiratory ED visits and hospitalizations for adverse birth outcomes using the appropriate-for-gestational age at term group as reference. Age-specific trajectories of total respiratory health services utilization rates for each group were estimated in Poisson models.

Results

A total of 293,764 episodes of respiratory care from 206,994 children were analyzed. Very PTB children had the highest rates of health services use for all respiratory conditions, particularly for asthma, pneumonia, and bronchiolitis hospitalizations. Moderate/late PTB children also had elevated ED visits and hospitalizations for all respiratory conditions. Children born SGA showed high rates of ED visits for other LRTI, and of hospitalizations for bronchitis, bronchiolitis, and other URTI. Children born LGA had high rates of croup and other URTI ED visits, and of bronchiolitis and bronchiolitis hospitalizations. Age-specific trajectories showed a decreasing trend in the rates of total respiratory health service utilization from birth to five years of age for all groups studied. Children born PTB and LGA at term significantly required more respiratory health services over time compared to the reference group.

Conclusion

Patterns of paediatric respiratory health services utilization vary according to gestational age and fetal growth.

Introduction

Alterations in fetal growth and duration of gestation are adverse birth outcomes that increase the risk of respiratory diseases both in childhood and adult life [16]. Much of the evidence to date about the relationship between adverse birth outcomes and lung problems in childhood has focused on the associations between preterm birth (PTB) or low birth weight and a high risk of asthma and asthma-like symptoms [59]. The increased susceptibility to respiratory diseases among children born PTB has been linked to the immaturity of both respiratory and adaptive immune systems at birth [10].

There is limited evidence about how other adverse birth outcomes (i.e., small and large for gestational age [SGA, LGA]) impact respiratory diseases other than asthma or asthma-like symptoms in early childhood. Physiological mechanisms linking SGA and LGA to future respiratory diseases are unclear and conflicting evidence has been reported for the association between SGA and LGA and respiratory health in childhood. For SGA, insufficient input of oxygen and metabolites linked to fetal growth restrictions could negatively impact the lung development of the fetus [2]. For LGA, both the higher risk of experiencing respiratory distress syndrome [11] and the reduced lung functional capacity observed in obese infants may alter the risk of suffering respiratory problems [12].

Some studies have reported that children born SGA have an elevated risk of asthma at ages 3 to 18 years [13], and an increased number of respiratory hospitalizations before the age of five [14]. Other studies have reported inconclusive evidence of associations between being born SGA at term or preterm and asthma or bronchitis/pneumonia symptoms at 5 years of age [15], or with respiratory viral infections during the first 6 months of life [16].

Paediatric respiratory diseases are major causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide [17]. In Canada, approximately 15% of children aged 4 to 11 years are diagnosed with asthma every year [18] while croup affects about 6% of children under six years of age [19]. Along with the high prevalence of pediatric respiratory diseases in Canada, the prevalence of PTB is 8% and fluctuates around 10% for SGA and LGA [20]. The health care costs during the first ten years of life for children who experienced PTB is high in Canada [21]. Knowledge gaps remain about the burden imposed by SGA and LGA on health care systems in relation to paediatric respiratory morbidity, especially for diseases other than asthma. Previous studies evaluating health care services utilization for respiratory diseases in children experiencing adverse birth outcomes have primarily focused on hospitalizations [1315,2224], whereas patterns of emergency department visits (ED visits) have seldom been explored [25].

To our knowledge, there are no previous population-based cohort studies examining and comparing patterns of respiratory health services utilization (ED visits and hospitalizations) among children who experienced alterations in fetal growth and duration of gestation. The objectives of this study were: (1) to evaluate patterns of ED visits and hospitalizations up to 5 years of age for a broad range of respiratory diseases among children who experienced adverse birth outcomes; and (2) to compare age-specific trajectories of total respiratory health services utilization across adverse birth outcomes. Results from this study may improve our understanding of the relative importance of alterations in fetal growth and duration of gestation in early childhood healthcare pathways.

Materials and methods

Study design

This population-based retrospective birth cohort study used provincial health data from Alberta, a culturally diverse province located in Western Canada with a population of ~ 4 million people [26] and a universal single-payer health care system. The study is reported following the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines [27].

Study population

The birth cohort consisted of all singleton live births from deliveries (≥22 weeks of gestation) that occurred between April 1, 2005 and March 31, 2010 in hospitals or attended by registered midwives at home in Alberta. Stillbirths, births that occurred outside of Alberta and multiple births were excluded. Multiple births, representing a small proportion of the total births (approximately 2.6%), were excluded as their neonatal and childhood outcomes are known to differ significantly as compared to the larger proportion of the singleton live births.

Data sources

The birth cohort was identified from the Alberta Perinatal Health Program (APHP), a validated clinical perinatal registry that collects information on maternal demographic and delivery characteristics, pregnancy outcomes, and newborn’s health status for all births occurring in hospitals or attended by registered midwives at home in Alberta [28]. Deaths and stillbirths were identified from Alberta Vital Statistics. Data on health services utilization from birth to five years of age were obtained from the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System (NACRS) and the Discharge Abstracts Database (DAD) for ED visits and hospitalizations, respectively. Both NACRS and DAD record the episodes of care using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, enhanced Canadian version (ICD-10-CA) [29]. The data were extracted by Alberta Health Services using unique identifiers to link data across health administrative datasets. All final patient records were de-identified before data files were accessed by the authors for data analysis.

Exposures and outcome measures

Preterm birth, SGA at term and LGA at term

Birth cohort members were classified into three exposure groups: (1) PTB (both spontaneous and induced), defined as a live birth with a gestation period < 37 weeks and sub-classified as moderate/late PTB (32–36 complete weeks of gestation) and very PTB (< 32 weeks of gestation) [30]; (2) SGA at term, defined as a live birth with ≥ 37 weeks of gestational age and a weight below the 10th percentile for gestational age and sex as per the 2001 Canadian population growth charts [31]; and (3) LGA at term, defined as a live birth with ≥ 37 weeks of gestational age and weight above the 90th percentile for gestational age and sex as per the 2001 Canadian population growth charts [31]. We focused on SGA and LGA at term to differentiate from PTB, a condition in which lung development immaturity has been well documented [10]. Members of the birth cohort that did not experience any of the study exposures were the reference group (i.e., appropriate-for-gestational age infants born at term).

Study outcomes

Respiratory health services utilization

Respiratory health services utilization was defined as all ED visits and hospitalizations that occurred from birth to 5 years of age with an ICD-10-CA primary diagnostic code indicative of acute bronchitis (J20), bronchiolitis (J21), asthma (J45), croup (J05), influenza (J09-J11), pneumonia (J12-J18), other acute lower respiratory tract infections (other LRTI) (J22), and other acute upper respiratory tract infections (other URTI) (J00-J06, except J05). Recurrent wheezing (R06.2) events were merged with asthma or bronchiolitis based on the most prevalent condition after the first wheezing episode. This merge was made because early life diagnosis of asthma and/or bronchiolitis is particularly difficult in acute settings, and recurrent wheezing has been associated with the development of asthma and respiratory viral infections [3234]. Data were censored at date of death or end of the follow-up period (i.e., 5 years of age).

Other variables

Clinical and sociodemographic characteristics related to pediatric respiratory problems were considered for statistical analysis. They included bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD; yes/no), Apgar score at 5 minutes (classified as low [0–3], moderately abnormal [46], and reassuring [710]) [35], sex recorded at birth (female, male), the use (yes/no) of significant resuscitative measures at birth (bag/mask, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, endotracheal tube or epinephrine), and maternal socioeconomic status (SES) at delivery.

We used the Pampalon Material and Social Deprivation Index as a proxy measure of SES. The Pampalon Index is a nationwide area-level composite indicator that integrates 2006 Canadian census data by dissemination area (the smallest standard geographic area for which census data is disseminated) regarding income, education, employment (for the material component), marital status, one-person household, and single-parent families (for the social component) for the population aged 15 and over [36]. The Pampalon Index has been used in previous Canadian studies as a valid measure of area-level SES [37]. The material and social deprivation components of the Index are reported in quintiles, where Q1 and Q5 correspond to the least and most deprived groups, respectively. The six-character maternal postal codes at delivery were geographically linked to the dissemination areas (which are a conglomerate of postal codes), as reported elsewhere [38].

The previous clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were treated as risk factors associated with respiratory problems during early childhood stages regardless of their role in causal pathways (i.e., confounders, moderators, or effect-modifiers). Our comparative analysis was not aimed to formally test causal pathways, but in generating measures of association balanced for other known risk factors. Moreover, the essential role of socioeconomic in producing respiratory health differences for each respiratory condition included in this study has been previously evaluated [39].

Statistical analysis

Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were described using frequencies and percentages. Counts of ED visits and hospitalizations were tabulated. Crude rates of ED visits and hospitalizations were calculated for each respiratory condition by adverse birth outcome. The total number of episodes of respiratory care was used as the numerator, and the total number of singleton live births in each group as denominator. Rates were expressed as episodes of respiratory care per 1,000 singleton live births up to five years of age.

We used random intercept coefficient Poisson regression models to evaluate patterns of ED visits and hospitalizations up to 5 years of age for each respiratory condition. Crude and adjusted rate ratios (RR and aRR, respectively) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated in relation to the reference group. Separate models for ED visits and hospitalizations were estimated for each respiratory disease. The dependent variable was the number of respiratory events from birth to five years of age. Independent variables were the adverse birth groups adjusted by relevant clinical and sociodemographic factors (i.e., sex, 5-minute Apgar score, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, use of significant resuscitation methods, and material and social deprivation). The random-intercept coefficients accounted for area-level variations in the DA for which material and social deprivation indexes were reported.

Using a hierarchical longitudinal Poisson model, we estimated age-specific trajectories of total respiratory health services utilization up to five years of age for the combined respiratory conditions by each birth group. ED visits and hospitalizations occurring on the same day were counted as one event in the trajectories analysis. The dependent variable was the total number of respiratory episodes of care (both hospitalizations and ED visits combined) per year of life. Independent variables were the adverse birth group, year of age (1 to 5), and an interaction term for adverse birth group and year of age. The model was adjusted for baseline factors (i.e., sex, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, Apgar 5-score, use of significant resuscitative measures, and material and social deprivation). Random intercepts were also considered at the DA level. After calculating incidence RR from the models, we estimated marginal respiratory care utilization rates with 95% CI per adverse birth group for the ages one to five. We graphically displayed the longitudinal trajectories of health services utilization rates as number of episodes of respiratory health services utilization every year of life per 1,000 singleton live births. Finally, for each year of life, we estimated the difference in marginal rates between the adverse birth group and the reference group using contrast tests with Bonferroni’s correction to adjust the 95% CIs. We used the log number of years of follow-up as offset in all Poisson models to correct for unequal lengths of follow-up due to censoring before the age of five. Missing data were not replaced in the analyses. Age-specific trajectories of respiratory health services utilization for single respiratory conditions by birth groups were estimated and reported in the supplementary material (Tables A to H in S1 Appendix). Statistical analyses were conducted using Stata 15.1 [40].

Ethics statement

We used de-identified data from Alberta Health Services, the sole provider of health services in the province and legal custodian of the data. Alberta Health Services’ policies and acts protect the security, privacy, and confidentiality of patient data collected. The anonymity of cases was guaranteed using the dissemination areas as the geographic reference instead of the maternal postal code at delivery. Therefore, informed consent was not necessary. The research project was approved by the University of Alberta’s Health Research Ethics Board (Pro00081365).

Results

Demographics and clinical characteristics

The birth cohort consisted of 206,994 live singleton births (Fig 1), which represent 96.6% of the total births registered in the province during the study period.

Fig 1. Flow diagram of assembly of the study cohort.

Fig 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics of the study population are shown in Table 1. The prevalence of PTB in the birth cohort was 9.2% (moderate/late PTB 7.7%, and very PTB 1.5%), while 7.9% and 8.8% were SGA and LGA at term, respectively. There were 183 (0.1%) deaths of birth cohort members at follow-up.

Table 1. Characteristics of the study population: Singleton live births in Alberta from April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010.

Characteristic N %
Live singletons 206,994 100.0
Sex
    Female 100,795 48.7
    Male 105,967 51.2
    Missing data 232 0.1
Adverse birth group
    Reference group 149,743 72.3
    Moderate/late PTB (32–26) 15,861 7.7
    Very PTB (<32) 3,107 1.5
    SGA at term 16,241 7.9
    LGA at term 18,134 8.8
    Missing data 3,908 1.9
5-min Apgar
    Reassuring (7–10) 194,943 94.2
    Moderately abnormal (4–6) 3,552 1.7
    Low (0–3) 832 0.4
    Missing data 7,667 3.7
Significant resuscitation measures 18,942 9.2
Bronchopulmonary dysplasia 128 0.1
Material deprivation (quintiles)
    Q1 (least deprived) 39,806 19.2
    Q2 38,931 18.8
    Q3 39,007 18.8
    Q4 37,635 18.2
    Q5 (most deprived) 43,193 20.9
    Missing data 8,422 4.1
Social Deprivation (quintiles)
    Q1 (least deprived) 27,353 13.2
    Q2 39,990 19.3
    Q3 43,927 21.2
    Q4 46,120 22.3
    Q5 (most deprived) 41,182 19.9
    Missing data 8,422 4.1
Deaths at follow-up 183 0.1

Reference group = appropriate-for-gestational age infants born at term; LGA = large for gestational age. PTB = preterm birth. SGA = small for gestational age.

Rates of respiratory health services utilization

A total of 293,764 episodes of respiratory care (276,293 ED visits and 17,471 hospitalizations) was made by the 206,994 members of the birth cohort during the 5-year follow-up period. Ninety-four percent of the episodes of care were registered as ED visits while 6% were hospitalizations. Fifty-eight percent of children had two or more ED visits, while 33% had two or more hospitalizations during the study period. The number of events per child until they turned five years of age are shown in the supplementary S1 and S2 Figs.

Overall, the highest ED visit rates in all study groups were attributed to other URTI, followed by croup, asthma, and pneumonia (Table 2). Hospitalizations in all study groups were mostly for bronchiolitis and pneumonia. The least frequent reasons for ED visits were influenza and other LRTI, whereas influenza and bronchitis were the least frequent reasons for hospitalizations, compared to all other respiratory diseases.

Table 2. Crude rates of ED visits and hospitalizations per 1,000 singleton live birth for respiratory health services from birth to 5 years in Alberta.

Total Reference group Moderate/late PTB Very/extremely PTB SGA at term LGA at term
Events Rate Events Rate Events Rate Events Rate Events Rate Events Rate
ED visits
URTI 150,551 741.3 109,076 728.4 12,935 815.5 2,261 727.7 11,264 693.6 15,015 828.0
Croup 33,072 162.8 23,819 159.1 3,031 191.1 588 189.3 2,195 135.2 3,439 189.6
Asthma 25,593 126.0 17,718 118.3 2,841 179.1 829 266.8 2,025 124.7 2,180 120.2
Pneumonia 22,342 110.0 15,419 103.0 2,417 152.4 831 267.5 1,651 101.7 2,024 111.6
Bronchiolitis 19,302 95.0 13,075 87.3 2,396 151.1 618 198.9 1,414 87.1 1,799 99.2
Bronchitis 14,015 69.0 10,098 67.4 1,264 79.7 311 100.1 923 56.8 1,419 78.3
Influenza 6,858 33.8 4,956 33.1 655 41.3 98 31.5 517 31.8 632 34.9
LRTI 4,560 22.5 3,171 21.2 475 29.9 93 29.9 371 22.8 450 24.8
Hospitalizations
Bronchiolitis 5,109 25.2 3188 21.3 754 47.5 303 97.5 387 23.8 477 26.3
Pneumonia 4,906 24.2 3175 21.2 612 38.6 336 108.1 358 22.0 425 23.4
Asthma 2,984 14.7 1962 13.1 385 24.3 181 58.3 232 14.3 224 12.4
URTI 2,212 10.9 1451 9.7 292 18.4 108 34.8 198 12.2 163 9.0
Croup 993 4.9 677 4.5 100 6.3 49 15.8 63 3.9 104 5.7
LRTI 493 2.4 288 1.9 71 4.5 53 17.1 40 2.5 41 2.3
Influenza 478 2.4 292 2.0 60 3.8 39 12.6 42 2.6 45 2.5
Bronchitis 296 1.5 181 1.2 34 2.1 10 3.2 25 1.5 46 2.5

Reference group = appropriate-for-gestational age infants born at term; LGA = large for gestational age; LRTI = lower respiratory tract infections; URTI = upper respiratory tract infections; PTB = preterm birth; SGA small for gestational age.

Multivariable analysis of respiratory health services utilization

Figs 2 and 3 display adjusted RRs for respiratory hospitalizations and ED visits during the first five years of life for adverse birth groups (all unadjusted and adjusted RRs are presented in S1 Table). Compared to the reference group, children born PTB had the highest rates of respiratory hospitalizations and ED visits, followed by LGA at term and SGA at term.

Fig 2. Adjusted rate ratios of respiratory hospitalizations for adverse birth groups.

Fig 2

CI = confidence interval; LGA = large for gestational age; LRTI = lower respiratory tract infections; URTI = upper respiratory tract infections; PTB = preterm birth; SGA = small for gestational age. Reference group = appropriate-for-gestational age infants born at term; aRR = rate ratio adjusted for sex, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, Apgar 5, score, use of significant resuscitative measures, and material and social deprivation.

Fig 3. Adjusted rate ratios of respiratory ED visits for adverse birth groups.

Fig 3

CI = confidence interval; LGA = large for gestational age; LRTI = lower respiratory tract infections; URTI = upper respiratory tract infections; PTB = preterm birth; SGA = small for gestational age. Reference group = appropriate-for-gestational age infants born at term; aRR = rate ratio adjusted for sex, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, Apgar 5, score, use of significant resuscitative measures, material and social deprivation.

Compared to the reference group, children born moderate/late PTB had significantly higher ED visits and hospitalization rates for all seven respiratory diseases studied. Increases in ED visit rates ranged from 1.2 times for other URTI (aRR 1.15; 95% CI 1.10, 1.19) to 1.7 times for bronchiolitis (aRR 1.67; CI 1.56, 1.80). Increased hospitalization rates among children born moderate/late PTB ranged from being 1.5 times higher for croup (aRR 1.52; 95% CI 1.20, 1.92) to 2.4 times higher for other LRTI (aRR 2.41; CI 1.77, 3.28) relative to the reference group.

Children born very PTB had significantly increased ED visit rates for croup (aRR 1.24; 95% CI 1.04, 1.48), bronchitis (aRR 1.35; 95% CI 1.05, 1.73), bronchiolitis (aRR 2.20; 95% CI 1.86, 2.61), pneumonia (aRR 2.26; 95% CI 1.90, 2.69), and asthma (aRR 2.43; 95% CI 2.01, 2.93). Children born very PTB had increased hospitalization rates for all seven respiratory conditions evaluated, ranging from 2.3 times for influenza (aRR 2.33; 95% CI 1.30, 4.18) to near 5 times for other LRTI (aRR 4.81; 95% CI 2.90, 7.97).

Children born SGA at term had significantly higher ED visit rates for other LRTI (aRR 1.16; 95% CI 1.01, 1.32) but lower ED visit rates for croup (aRR 0.86; 95% CI 0.82, 0.92) compared to the reference group. Hospitalization rates for bronchiolitis (aRR 1.13; 95% CI 1.01, 1.27) and other URTI (aRR 1.25; 95% CI 1.05, 1.49) were significantly higher among children born SGA relative to the reference group.

Children born LGA at term, had increased ED visit rates for croup (aRR 1.17; CI 1.11, 1.24) and other URTI (aRR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01–1.04), and higher hospitalization rates for bronchiolitis (aRR 1.14; 95% CI 1.02, 1.26) and bronchitis (aRR 1.86; 95% CI 1.35, 2.57) relative to the reference group.

Age-specific trajectories of total respiratory health service utilization rates

Age-specific trajectories of total respiratory health service utilization rates from birth to five years of age among the different adverse birth groups are presented in Table 3 and Fig 4. All trajectories followed a decreasing trend in the rates of respiratory health service utilization from birth to five years of age.

Table 3. Adjusted rates and rate differences for age-specific trajectories of respiratory health service utilization for birth groups.

Age (in years) Birth group Adjusted Rate [95% CI] Rate difference [95% CI] Percentage of change (% [95% CI])
Birth to < 1 Reference 370.7 [367.6, 373.8] Reference
Moderate/late PTB 536.9 [524.1, 549.8] 166.2 [147.3, 185.2]* 45 [41, 47]
Very PTB 569.1 [537.1, 601.0] 198.4 [152.4, 244.3]* 54 [45, 61]
SGA at term 357.0 [347.9, 366.2] -13.7 [-27.5, 0.1] -4 [–6, 0]
LGA at term 433.1 [423.4, 442.7] 62.4 [47.9, 76.9]* 17 [14, 18]
1 to < 2 Reference 345.3 [342.3, 348.3] Reference
Moderate/late PTB 454.0 [442.2, 465.8] 108.7 [91.3, 126.2]* 31 [29, 34]
Very PTB 590.6 [558.0, 623.1] 245.3 [198.4, 292.2]* 71 [63, 79]
SGA at term 325.8 [317.1, 334.6] -19.5 [-32.7, -6.2]* - 6 [–7, –4]
LGA at term 395.2 [386.0, 404.4] 49.9 [36.0, 63.8]* 14 [13, 16]
2 to < 3 Reference 228.5 [226.0, 230.9] Reference
Moderate/late PTB 288.0 [278.6, 297.4] 59.5 [45.7, 73.4]* 26 [23, 29]
Very PTB 380.8 [355.0, 406.7] 152.3 [115.2, 189.6]* 67 [57, 76]
SGA at term 211.0 [204.0, 218.1] -17.5 [-28.1, -6.8]* - 8 [–10, –6]
LGA at term 251.9 [244.6, 259.3] 23.4 [12.3, 34.5]* 10 [8, 12]
3 to < 4 Reference 181.9 [179.8, 184.1] Reference
Moderate/late PTB 235.4 [226.9, 243.9] 53.5 [40.9, 66.0]* 29 [26, 33]
Very PTB 247.9 [227.2, 268.6] 66 [36.1, 95.8]* 36 [26, 46]
SGA at term 168.9 [162.6, 175.2] -13 [-22.6, -3.5]* - 7 [–9, –5]
LGA at term 206.5 [199.9, 213.2] 24.6 [14.6, 34.6]* 14 [11, 16]
4 to < 5 Reference 147.9 [146.0, 149.9] Reference
Moderate/late PTB 186.6 [179.0, 194.2] 38.7 [27.4, 49.8]* 26 [23, 29]
Very PTB 230.3 [210.4, 250.3] 82.4 [53.7, 111.1]* 56 [44, 67]
SGA at term 137.4 [131.7, 143.1] -10.5 [-19.2, -2.0]* - 7 [–10, –5]
LGA at term 158.2 [152.4, 164.1] 10.3 [1.5, 19.1]* 7 [4, 9]
5 to < 6 Reference 115.4 [113.7, 117.1] Reference
Moderate/late PTB 143.3 [136.7, 149.9] 27.9 [18.1, 37.7]* 24 [20, 28]
Very PTB 157.5 [141.1, 173.9] 42.1 [18.4, 65.8]* 36 [24, 49]
SGA at term 111.1 [106.0, 116.2] -4.3 [-12.0, 3.4] -4 [–7, 3]
LGA at term 133.4 [128.0, 138.7] 18 [9.9, 26.1]* 16 [12, 19]

Reference group = appropriate-for-gestational age infants born at term; CI = confidence interval; LGA = large for gestational age; PTB = preterm birth; SGA = small for gestational age.

Adjusted rates expressed as aggregated ED visits and hospitalizations for all combined respiratory conditions per 1,000 singleton live births.

* statistically significant differences (p-value < 0.05) between the corresponding adverse birth group and the reference group using Bonferroni’s correction of p-value for multiple comparisons.

Fig 4. Age-specific trajectories of respiratory health service utilization rates from birth to five years of age for birth groups.

Fig 4

Reference group = appropriate-for-gestational age infants born at term; LGA = large for gestational age; PTB = preterm birth; SGA = small for gestational age. Rates expressed as number of events per 1,000 singleton live births. Bars express 95% confidence intervals.

Compared to the reference group, children born very PTB, moderate/late PTB, and LGA at term significantly required more respiratory health services over time. Children born SGA at term had similar respiratory health services utilization rates as the reference group at birth and at five years of age, and small reductions of health services utilization rates at ages 1 to 2 (-6%), 2 to 3 (-8%) and 3 to 5 (-7% each year).

Discussion

Using a population-based retrospective cohort design, this study found patterns of respiratory health services utilization in the first five years of life that were distinctive for the group of adverse birth outcomes evaluated. While PTB accounted for the highest rates of ED visits and/or hospitalizations for all respiratory conditions evaluated, SGA at term associated with higher rates of ED visits for other LRTI, higher hospitalizations rates for bronchiolitis and other URTI, but lower ED visit rates for croup. LGA at term resulted in higher rates of ED visits for croup and other URTI and for bronchitis and bronchiolitis hospitalizations. Age-specific trajectories of respiratory health services utilization rates throughout the first five years of life also showed distinct patterns among the adverse birth groups: increased rates among children born PTB, moderately high for children LGA at term, and similar or lower rates for SGA compared to the reference group.

The observed decline in respiratory health service utilization after the first two years of life for all analyzed groups is consistent with prior literature as lung development increases alveolarization during the first 2–4 years of life [41]. Our results showed that children who experienced PTB (moderate and very-PTB) and LGA had higher rates of respiratory health services utilization for the first 5 years compared to the reference group, suggesting that there is room for more preventive management to help families keep these children healthy at home. Targeted public health interventions are required to promote health and minimize respiratory illnesses in these babies to improve morbidity and decrease health care costs. As well, knowing that a patient is in a higher risk group such as LGA will help to direct strategies for parent/caregiver counseling.

Our study results about the large impact of PTB on lung health in early childhood are consistent with a growing body of evidence summarized in meta-analyses of observational studies about the strong association between PTB and asthma [8,4244]. Children born PTB in our study had higher hospitalization rates for pneumonia and bronchiolitis, conditions that are frequently caused by respiratory viral infections. Importantly, our study adds evidence of the strong association between PTB and respiratory infections in early childhood. Compared to the reference group, very PTB children had a 4-fold increase in the hospitalization rate for other LRTI and a 3-fold increase in the rate of hospital admissions for croup. These results are consistent with other reports of increased risk of respiratory infections among PTB children [14] due to impaired lung development and defects in the immune system [45] that are accentuated by decreasing gestational age [46].

The high rates of other LRTI and bronchiolitis ED visits and other URTI hospitalizations among children born SGA at term align with other population-based studies showing a high risk of respiratory hospitalizations in SGA children (including those born prematurely) during early childhood [14]. Our results also align with those reported by Yoshimoto et al. [15], who did not find a significant association between SGA at term and an increased risk of bronchitis, pneumonia, and asthma hospitalizations at five years of age. However, we found high rates of hospitalizations for bronchiolitis, suggesting that SGA at term could be associated with inflammation of the small airways. Our results and those of earlier studies suggest a vulnerability in respiratory function likely associated with impaired immune responses to infection in children with low weight at birth [45], either because of nutritional deprivation [47] or lung abnormalities that predispose to airway inflammation [48]. We did not observe increased rates for asthma among children born SGA at term compared to the reference group. It has been previously reported that SGA preterm children have an increased risk of developing asthma when low birth weight (< 2500 g) is used as an indicator of intrauterine growth restriction [49]. Our results align with those of a population-based study that did not find associations between SGA and asthma in children aged less than 10 years of age [50]. Additionally, the similar and even lower age-trajectories rates for the combined respiratory conditions for SGA at term compared to the reference group may be explained by the inclusion of exclusively SGA at term in the case definition. Most of the studies reporting SGA include SGA preterm cases, which limits comparability with our results. Another potential explanation for the small differences between rates may be related to the population growth chart that was used to classify SGA cases. The 2001 Canadian population growth chart likely classify small babies of certain immigrant populations as SGA cases. It is known that immigration in Alberta has been growing considerably since 2000 [51], and Heaman et al. [52] reported an odds ratio of 1.7 (95%CI: 1.1–2.4) for SGA related to recent immigrants to Canada.

Previous research suggests that children born LGA are at a high risk of developing respiratory distress at birth [11]. We found higher rates of respiratory health service utilization among LGA children for upper tract infections and bronchiolitis, especially during the first two years of life. Finally, children born LGA at term in our study did not have higher rates of asthma health services utilization. This result is consistent with findings from a recent meta-analysis of 90,000 children and adults reporting no association between birth weight > 4 kg and subsequent risk of asthma [49]. Physiological pathways leading to respiratory problems in LGA babies remain unclear. It has been observed that LGA neonates have an increased risk of respiratory distress at birth [11], but it has also been reported that infants born large for gestational age are more likely to be obese [53]. A high prevalence of childhood obesity (around 30%) has been reported in Canada [54]. Obese children have several complications including breathing difficulties [12,53]. This can be a potential explanation for the respiratory trajectories among LGA cases. Lack of longitudinal weight gain data in our research precluded exploration of the extent of respiratory morbidity among LGA cases that is associated with overweight.

Strengths of this study include the use of a validated perinatal clinical registry to identify the adverse birth exposure groups. The linkage of population-based administrative health data allowed us to assemble a large cohort of children born in Alberta over a 5-year period (2005–2010) and follow up their history of respiratory health services utilization over the first five years of their life.

Study limitations are related to potential misclassification of respiratory outcomes. We used ICD diagnostic codes recorded in administrative databases to estimate rates of respiratory health services utilization. The impact of potential misclassification in outcome assessment is expected to be minimal because the healthcare databases used in this study follow high-quality data protocols [55]. A set of quality control measures to ensure high-quality hospitalization data are applied by the Canadian Institute for Health Information such as examining relationships between data elements and element edits to each abstract [55]. However, limitations of using single code diagnoses data for some conditions like asthma exist, which is difficult to diagnose using single coding administrative data [56] especially during early childhood. There is a potential overestimation of both hospitalizations and ED visit rates as we were not able to adjust the denominators for the number of children who moved out of the province during the follow-up period due to lack of migration data. However, as a low annual average rate of emigration during the study period has been estimated (around 0.18% [57]), the impact of migration on rate calculations is likely low. Residual confounding is expected to some extent since the datasets do not register clinical information about other important factors related to respiratory health (e.g., ventilation therapies or improvements in subsequent health care for neonates experiencing adverse birth outcomes, and breastfeeding). The use of population-level data and hierarchical models at the DA level accounted for possible differential geographical access to health services and climate conditions that may modulate the frequency of some respiratory diseases, helping to reduce bias in RR estimations.

Conclusion

This study supports evidence about increased ED visits and hospitalizations for respiratory problems in the first five years of life in children born PTB. Additionally, the study showed that alterations in fetal growth, especially in LGA at term cases, increased the use of respiratory health services utilization during early childhood, particularly for respiratory infections. The population-level patterns of age-specific trajectories in health service utilization have the potential to inform the development of targeted paediatric strategies supportive of healthy lung development in children who experienced adverse birth outcomes. Future research using life-course and environmental approaches are needed to improve our knowledge of the relationships between adverse birth outcomes and lung function in early childhood.

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. STROBE statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of cohort studies.

(DOC)

S1 Fig. Cumulative percentage (%) of the number of ED-visits per child.

(TIFF)

S2 Fig. Cumulative percentage (%) of the number of hospitalizations per child.

(TIFF)

S1 Table. Rate ratios for respiratory hospitalizations and ED visits from birth to five years for adverse birth groups.

(PDF)

S1 Appendix. Age-specific trajectories of respiratory health services utilization for single respiratory conditions by birth groups.

(PDF)

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because it is held securely in coded form at Alberta Health Services. Alberta Health Services is the legal custodian of the original data. Alberta Health Services’ policies and acts (e.g., Health Information Act of Alberta) guarantee the security, privacy and confidentiality of the patient data. Data agreement with Alberta Health Services prohibits researchers from making the dataset publicly available. Access to data may be granted to those who meet pre-specified criteria for confidential access. Data are available from Alberta Health Services Provincial Research Data Services for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Alberta Health Services’ (AHS) Health System Access (HSA): https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/research/page8579.aspx. More information at: research.administration@ahs.ca.

Funding Statement

This research was funded by the Lois Hole Hospital for Women through a Women and Children’s Health Research Institute Recruitment Award (MBO) (https://www.wchri.org), and the Lung Association Alberta & NWT through the 2017-2018 National Grant Review program (https://www.ab.lung.ca/what-we-do/research/grant-opportunities/national-grant-review). MBO’s research is supported by the Canada Research Chair Program (Government of Canada; Ottawa, Canada). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Barker DJ, Godfrey KM, Fall C, Osmond C, Winter PD, Shaheen SO. Relation of birth weight and childhood respiratory infection to adult lung function and death from chronic obstructive airways disease. BMJ. 1991;303(6804):671–675. 10.1136/bmj.303.6804.671 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Britt RD Jr, Faksh A, Vogel E, Martin RJ, Pabelick CM, Prakash YS. Perinatal factors in neonatal and pediatric lung diseases. Expert Rev Respir Med. 2013;7(5):515–531. 10.1586/17476348.2013.838020 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Duijts L. Fetal and infant origins of asthma. Eur J Epidemiol. 2012;27(1):5–14. 10.1007/s10654-012-9657-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Edwards CA, Osman LM, Godden DJ, Campbell DM, Douglas JG. Relationship between birth weight and adult lung function: controlling for maternal factors. Thorax. 2003;58(12):1061–1065. 10.1136/thorax.58.12.1061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Turner S, Prabhu N, Danielan P, McNeill G, Craig L, Allan K, et al. First, and second, trimester fetal size and asthma outcomes at age 10 years. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184(4):407–413. 10.1164/rccm.201012-2075OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Patelarou E, Chochlidaki M, Vivilaki V, Brokalaki H. Is there a link between wheezing in early childhood and adverse birth outcomes? A systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6(11):2752–2761. 10.3390/ijerph6112752 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Brew BK, Marks GB, CAPS [Childhood Asthma Prevention Study] Investigators. Perinatal factors and respiratory health in children. Clin Exp Allergy. 2012;42(11):1621–1629. 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2012.04056.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Jaakkola JJ, Ahmed P, Ieromnimon A, Goepfert P, Laiou E, Quansah R, et al. Preterm delivery and asthma: a systematic review and meta, analysis. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;118(4):823–830. 10.1016/j.jaci.2006.06.043 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Henderson AJ, Warner JO. Fetal origins of asthma. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012;17(2):82–91. 10.1016/j.siny.2012.01.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Pike KC, Lucas JSA. Respiratory consequences of late preterm birth. Paediatr Resp Rev. 2015;16(3):182–188. 10.1016/j.prrv.2014.12.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Mitanchez D, Yzydorczyk C, Simeoni U. What neonatal complications should the pediatrician be aware of in case of maternal gestational diabetes?. World J Diabetes. 2015;6(5):734–743. 10.4239/wjd.v6.i5.734 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Fiorino EK, Brooks LJ. Obesity and respiratory diseases in childhood. Clin Chest Med. 2009;30(3):601–608. 10.1016/j.ccm.2009.05.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Liu X, Olsen J, Agerbo E, Yuan W, Cnattingius S, Gissler M, Li J. Birth weight, gestational age, fetal growth and childhood asthma hospitalization. Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol. 2014;10(1):13 10.1186/1710-1492-10-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Paranjothy S, Dunstan F, Watkins WJ, Hyatt M, Demmler JC, Lyons RA, et al. Gestational age, birth weight, and risk of respiratory hospital admission in childhood. Pediatrics. 2013;132(6):1562–1569. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yoshimoto J, Yorifuji T, Washio Y, Okamura T, Watanabe H, Doi H, et al. Population, based longitudinal study showed that children born small for gestational age faced a higher risk of hospitalisation during early childhood. Acta Paediatr. 2019;108(3):473–478. 10.1111/apa.14507 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Boonyaratanakornkit J, Englund JA, Magaret AS, Bu Y, Tielsch JM, Khatry SK, et al. Primary and repeated respiratory viral infections among infants in rural Nepal. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2020;9(1):21–29. 10.1093/jpids/piy107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Zar HJ, Ferkol TW. The global burden of respiratory disease, impact on child health. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2014;49(5):430–434. 10.1002/ppul.23030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Canadian Institute for Health Information. Asthma Hospitalizations Among Children and Youth in Canada: Trends and Inequalities. 2018 [cited 2019 March 22]. Available from: https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/asthma, hospitalization, children, 2018, chartbook, en, web.pdf.
  • 19.Johnson DW, Williamson J. Croup in children. Can Med Assoc J. 2013;185(15):1317–1323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Statistics Canada. Table 13-10-0745-01. Birth, related indicators (low and high birth weight, small and large for gestational age, pre, term births), by sex, three, year period, health regions and peer groups. [Cited 2019 March 22]. Data repository [Internet]. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1310074501.
  • 21.Johnston KM, Gooch K, Korol E, Vo P, Eyawo O, Bradt P. et al. The economic burden of prematurity in Canada. Pediatrics. 2014;14:93 10.1186/1471-2431-14-93 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Algert CS, Bowen JR, Lain SL, Allen HD, Vivian-Taylor JM, Roberts CL. Pregnancy exposures and risk of childhood asthma admission in a population birth cohort. Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2011;22(8):836–842. 10.1111/j.1399-3038.2011.01206.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Davidson R, Roberts SE, Wotton CJ, Goldacre MJ. Influence of maternal and perinatal factors on subsequent hospitalisation for asthma in children: evidence from the Oxford record linkage study. BMC Pulm Med. 2010;10:14 10.1186/1471-2466-10-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Haataja P, Korhonen P, Ojala R, Hirvonen M, Korppi M, Gissler M, et al. Hospital admissions for lower respiratory tract infections in children born moderately/late preterm. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2018;53(2):209–217. 10.1002/ppul.23908 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Johnson J, Ryan T, Aherrera AD, McGrath-Morrow SA, Collaco JM. The influence of small for gestational age status on outpatient bronchopulmonary dysplasia outcomes. J Perinatol. 2015;35(1):72–76. 10.1038/jp.2014.142 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Statistics Canada. Census Profile, 2016 Census. 2017 [cited 2020 May 20]. Available from: https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dp-pd/prof/index.cfm?Lang=E.
  • 27.Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Strobe Initiative. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology [STROBE] statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007;4(10):e296 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Alberta Perinatal Health Program. Alberta Perinatal Health Program. 2016 [cited 2016 October 2]. Available from: http://aphp.dapasoft.com/Lists/HTMLPages/index.aspx.
  • 29.Canadian Institute for Health Information. ICD-10-CA. International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. Ottawa [ON]: CIHI; 2015 [cited 2016 October 2]. Available from: https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/icd_volume_one_2015_en_0.pdf.
  • 30.Quinn JA, Munoz FM, Gonik B, Frau L, Cutland C, Mallett-Moore T, et al. Preterm birth: Case definition & guidelines for data collection, analysis, and presentation of immunisation safety data. Vaccine. 2016;34(49):6047–6056. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2016.03.045 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kramer MS, Platt RW, Wen SW, Joseph KS, Allen A, Abrahamowicz M, et al. A new and improved population, based Canadian reference for birth weight for gestational age. Pediatrics. 2001;108(2):E135 10.1542/peds.108.2.e35 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Ducharme FM, Dell SD, Radhakrishnan D, Grad RM, Watson WTA, Yang CL, et al. Diagnosis and management of asthma in preschoolers: A Canadian Thoracic Society and Canadian Paediatric Society position paper. Can Respir J. 2015;22(3):135–143. 10.1155/2015/101572 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Douros K, Everard ML. Time to say goodbye to bronchiolitis, viral wheeze, reactive airways disease, wheeze bronchitis and all that. Front Pediatr. 2020;8:218 10.3389/fped.2020.00218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Ren CL, Esther CR, Debley JS, Sockrider M, Yilmaz O, Amin N, et al. Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guidelines: Diagnostic evaluation of infants with recurrent or persistent wheezing. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;194(3):356–373. 10.1164/rccm.201604-0694ST [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The Apgar score. Committee Opinion No. 644. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:e52–e55. 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001108 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Pampalon R, Hamel D, Gamache P, Raymond G. A deprivation index for health planning in Canada. Chronic Dis Can. 2009;29(4):178–191. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Pampalon R, Hamel D, Gamache P, Philibert MD, Raymond G, Simpson A. An area based material and social deprivation index for public health in Québec and Canada. Can J Public Health. 2012;103(8 Suppl 2):S17–S22. 10.1007/BF03403824 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Serrano-Lomelin J, Nielsen CC, Hicks A, Crawford S, Bakal JA, Ospina MB. Geographic inequalities of respiratory health services utilization during childhood in Edmonton and Calgary, Canada: A tale of two cities. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(23):8973 10.3390/ijerph17238973 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Belon AP, Serrano‐Lomelin J, Nykiforuk CIJ, Hicks A, Crawford S, Bakal J, et al. Health gradients in emergency visits and hospitalisations for paediatric respiratory diseases: A population‐based retrospective cohort study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2020;34(2):150–160. 10.1111/ppe.12639 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15.1 2017. College Station, TX: StataCorp. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Carraro S, Scheltema N, Bont L, Baraldi E. Early-life origins of chronic respiratory diseases: understanding and promoting healthy ageing. Eur Respir J. 2014;44(6):1682–1696. 10.1183/09031936.00084114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sonnenschein-van der Voort AM, Arends LR, de Jongste JC, Annesi-Maesano I, Arshad SH, Barros H, et al. Preterm birth, infant weight gain, and childhood asthma risk: A meta, analysis of 147,000 European children. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;133(5):1317–1329. 10.1016/j.jaci.2013.12.1082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.den Dekker HT, Sonnenschein-van der Voort AM, de Jongste JC, Anessi, Maesano I, Arshad SH, Barros H, et al. Early growth characteristics and the risk of reduced lung function and asthma: A meta, analysis of 25,000 children. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;137(4):1026–1035. 10.1016/j.jaci.2015.08.050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Been JV, Lugtenberg MJ, Smets E, van Schayck CP, Kramer BW, Mommers M, et al. Preterm Birth and Childhood Wheezing Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta, Analysis. PLoS Med. 2014;11(1):e1001596 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001596 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Baxter D. Impaired functioning of immune defenses to infection in premature and term infants and their implications for vaccination. Human Vaccines. 2010;6(6):494–505. 10.4161/hv.6.6.12008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Townsi N, Laing IA, Hall GL, Simpson SJ. The impact of respiratory viruses on lung health after preterm birth. Eur Clin Respir J. 2018;5(1):1487214 10.1080/20018525.2018.1487214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Cosmi E, Fanelli T, Visentin S, Trevisanuto D, Zanardo V. Consequences in infants that were intrauterine growth restricted. J Pregnancy. 2011;2011:1–6. 10.1155/2011/364381 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sharma D, Shastri S, Sharma P. Intrauterine growth restriction: antenatal and postnatal aspects. Clin Med Insights Pediatr. 2016;10:67–83. 10.4137/CMPed.S40070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Mu M, Ye S, Bai M-J, Liu G-L, Tong Y, Wang S-F, et al. Birth weight and subsequent risk of asthma: a systematic review and meta, analysis. Heart Lung and Circ. 2014;23(6):511–519. 10.1016/j.hlc.2013.11.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Gessner BD, Chimonas M-AR. Asthma is associated with preterm birth but not with small for gestational age status among a population, based cohort of Medicaid, enrolled children <10 years of age. Thorax. 2007;62(3):231–236. 10.1136/thx.2005.053363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Government of Alberta. International Migration in Alberta. Demographic Spotlight. 2009 [cited 2019 April 11]. Available from: https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/4c01ba53-2ba2-4ff5-b82c-8868d377c155/resource/c54fa3c7-2bf6-4d84-b7c7-aefabb043dce/download/20091221internationalmigrationspotlightfinal.pdf.
  • 52.Heaman M, Kingston D, Chalmers B, Sauve R, Lee L, Young D. Risk factors for preterm birth and small-for-gestational-age births among Canadian women: risk factors for PTB and SGA births. Paediatric Perinat Epidemiol. 2013;27(1):54–61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Weschenfelder F, Lehmann T, Schleussner E, Groten T. Gestational weight gain particularly affects the risk of large for gestational age infants in non-obese mothers. Geburtsh Frauenheilkd. 2019;79(11):1183–1190. 10.1055/a-0891-0919 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Rao DP, Kropac E, Do MT, Roberts KC, Jayaraman GC. Childhood overweight and obesity trends in Canada. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2016;36(9):194–198. 10.24095/hpcdp.36.9.03 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hinds A, Lix LM, Smith M, Quan H, Sanmartin C. Quality of administrative health databases in Canada: a scoping review. Can J Public Health. 2016;27;107(1):56 10.17269/cjph.107.5244 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Nissen F, Quint J, Wilkinson S, Müllerova H, Smeeth L, Douglas IJ. Validation of asthma recording in electronic health records: a systematic review. Clin Epidemiol. 2017;9:643–656. 10.2147/CLEP.S143718 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Government of Alberta. Alberta Population Estimates, Data Tables. 2020 [cited 2019 March 30]. Data repository [Internet]. Available from: https://open.alberta.ca/opendata/alberta-population-estimates-data-tables.

Decision Letter 0

Harald Ehrhardt

30 Oct 2020

PONE-D-20-22831

Patterns of respiratory health services utilization from birth to 5 years of children who experienced adverse birth outcomes

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ospina,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please address all specific points raised by the reviewers, especially reviewer 1 and 2. The compilation of recurrent wheeze with asthma and bronchiolitis puts together different disease entities therefore I suggest a differentiated approach to these entities. I apologize for the delay in finding reviewers for your manuscript what is due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 14 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Harald Ehrhardt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In ethics statement in the manuscript and in the online submission form, please provide additional information about the database used in your retrospective study. Specifically, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have their data used in research, please include this information.

3.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors present the results of a retrospective cohort study exploring patterns of respiratory health services utilization in early childhood among children with adverse birth outcomes, defined as being born preterm (PTB), small for gestational age at term (SGA), and large for gestational age at term (LGA). Using administrative health data of all singleton live births in Alberta, Canada between 2005-2010, they estimated adjusted rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals for respiratory ED visits and hospitalizations from birth to 5 years of age for asthma, bronchiolitis, croup, influenza, pneumonia, and other acute upper and lower respiratory tract infections. There were 206,994 children in their cohort, representing 293,764 episodes of respiratory care. Compared to children without adverse birth outcomes, children with PTB had the highest rates of ED visits and hospitalizations, followed by those with LGA. Those with SGA at term had lower rates of ED visits and hospitalizations. Those with SGA at term had the lower rates. Health services utilization rates for respiratory health problems declined with the age of the child from birth to age 5 years.

The authors ask an interesting question about the respiratory health of children born preterm and both small and large for gestational age and their utilization of health services in childhood. There are several questions that need to be addressed before the manuscript is suitable for publication.

1. As the authors note, there is a robust literature on respiratory outcomes among infants born preterm. Why include this group in the study? How does this study add to what is already known?

2. Can the authors include a physiologic rationale/hypothesis for why infants born SGA or LGA might have increased risk for respiratory morbidity in childhood?

3. Small note: ABO commonly refers to blood type groups and, as used here as shorthand for adverse birth outcomes, is a bit confusing for readers.

4. The authors describe a “population-based cohort study” – can they comment on the percentage of births in Alberta represented in this cohort sample?

5. How did the authors conceptualize the covariates they included in the analyses? Adjustment implies confounding, though it is not clear how factors like BPD serve as prior common causes of both exposure and outcome. Clarification is needed, as the conceptualization of the role of the covariates informs the appropriateness of the analytic strategies used. For example, BPD is more likely a mediator rather than confounder. Sex may be conceptualized as an effect modifier. A conceptual model or diagram would help the reader understand more clearly how the authors view the relationships among the variables.

6. The authors use a robust measure for SES – the Pampalon Material and Social Deprivation Index. As there are well-described associations between environmental and social risk and respiratory health in children, especially for those with asthma, why did the authors opt to adjust their analyses for this important driver of health? Can they present the effect estimates of the index on rates of admission/ED visits to allow readers to assess the magnitude of effect in relation to that of ABO?

7. The longitudinal modeling is quite interesting and adds quite a bit to the study. Close to 90,000 individuals had more than 1 ED visit or hospitalization during the study period. It would be helpful to know how many children had 1, 2, 3, etc visits over the 5 years. That is, how much information did each child contribute to the longitudinal analysis?

8. Do the rates of admission/ED visits between ABO groups differ significantly in each year?

9. The authors describe their findings regarding children born SGA in the context of existing literature. One wonders why, in their study, the authors found lower rates of respiratory illness-related health services use compared to the other groups of children. Might they discuss why this may be the case? Is there a biologic mechanism at play Or perhaps might this be a result of the modeling approach?

10. The findings regarding children born LGA are also intriguing. Why might respiratory distress at birth – often associated with maternal diabetes or macrosomia-related birth trauma among LGA infants – be linked to risk for respiratory morbidity during childhood in this group of children?

11. The graphical representation of hospitalization/ED visit rates by year show a striking decline between 1 and 5 years of age for all groups. This is consistent with prior literature, as risk for respiratory morbidity falls with age. The authors do not include this finding in their discussion section. What implications do these data have on clinical care and health policy?

Reviewer #2: This population-based retrospective cohort study compared patterns of respiratory ED visits and hospitalizations during the first five years of life of children born with preterm birth, SGA at term or LGA at term, and demonstrated that SGA and LGA at term increased the use of respiratory health services utilization during early childhood, particularly for respiratory infections. Although the respiratory outcomes based on the ICD diagnostic codes were not necessarily accurate, the large sample size was a strength of this cohort study.

Specific comments

1) The criteria to merge recurrent wheezing (R06.2) with asthma (J45) or bronchiolitis (J20-J21) should be specified.

2) Acute bronchitis (J22) could include the patients diagnosed as (J40.1), and (J20). Therefore, acute bronchiolitis (J21) and acute bronchitis (J20) should be separately analyzed.

3) Age-specific trajectories of total respiratory health service utilization rates were analyzed. Incidences of respiratory diseases, especially infectious diseases, are well-known to change depending on the subjects’ age. Therefore, it is more informative to analyze age-specific trajectories of respiratory health service utilization due to bronchiolitis, croup, or asthma, separately.

4) The first paragraph in the discussion section is a mere repetition of the results, so that it should be concisely summarized.

5) The reason why the discrepancy of the association between SGA at term and an increased risk of bronchitis was observed among different studies should be discussed.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript presents an interesting analysis of routinely collected perinatal and healthcare utilisation data from Canada. The data supports some commonly held beliefs around respiratory health in children who are born early, but also challenges some of the beliefs around the respiratory health of those children born either small or large for gestational age. The data are presented clearly and logically. For the most part and I think it adds to our knowledge in this area. The data is not freely available but this is explained in the manuscript.

I have some small comments or suggestions which do not significantly impact the value of the manuscript. I think it would be useful if the authors could make some comment on the quality of data capture and also in their health system whether episodes are likely to have been missed. There is always an inherent inaccuracy in data coding. There is a short comment on how to code recurrent wheezing in the methods. I'm not sure that a European audience would be content with recurrent wheezing being diagnosed as bronchiolitis, with the exception may be of two or three episodes in the first winter in the first year of life.

The most interesting data actually relates to those children born small for gestational age or large for gestational age. There is some mention in the text about beliefs around respiratory outcomes in these children, but the references are perhaps not as complete as they might be. I'm also not entirely sure why multiple births were excluded and the data is restricted to singleton births only.

There are a few typographical errors. There is an error at the beginning of the sentence in line 211. There is also an inappropriate use of the semicolon in line 214. I'm sure there may be one or two others that I have missed.

The terminology or abbreviation for adverse back birth outcomes is the same as that used for ABO blood groups and in the text 'ABO type' is referred to. I can't think of a good alternative for 'adverse birth outcomes' but I would certainly avoid the phrase 'ABO type'.

In the discussion around respiratory health outcomes in children born small for gestation age, emphasis is made around those few diagnoses where healthcare utilisation is increased. Actually the most surprising thing about the data for those children born small for gestational age is how little their respiratory health appears to be affected. I think this could be discussed a little more. Finally, the Forrest plots presented are visually appealing and helpful for the reader. I do wonder if the diagnoses list for each adverse birth outcomes group and the control group should perhaps be in the same order (although this might be difficult to arrange as Forrest plots software tends to present as the authors have shown).

I think this is a useful paper and certainly merits publication

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yusei Ohshima

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr Gary Doherty

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 19;16(2):e0247527. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247527.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


7 Jan 2021

Editor’s Comments.

Please address all specific points raised by the reviewers, especially reviewer 1 and

2. The compilation of recurrent wheeze with asthma and bronchiolitis puts together

different disease entities therefore I suggest a differentiated approach to these entities.

I apologize for the delay in finding reviewers

Response

Thank you for the opportunity to reply to the reviewers’ comments and for the very constructive feedback. We introduced modifications throughout the manuscript in light of your helpful comments and suggestions. Please see below responses to all comments and line references to where modifications have been made in the revised manuscript. The modified manuscript includes all changes and other minimal changes required after the manuscript revision.

The compilation of recurrent wheezing with asthma or bronchiolitis has been explained as suggested by reviewer # 2 (point # 13 below). In the acute setting, physicians struggle to come up with accurate diagnostic codes for conditions with overlapping presentations such as bronchiolitis, wheeze and asthma. To complicate matters, there are differing ways in which a diagnosis of asthma is made, and guidelines have evolved over the years. This means that when using diagnostic codes, it is frequent that the three conditions overlap. We have explained the criteria to merge recurrent wheezing with asthma or bronchiolitis, and added three references. See Lines 147-151: “Recurrent wheezing (R06.2) events were merged with asthma or bronchiolitis based on the most prevalent condition after the first wheezing episode. This merge was made because early life diagnosis of asthma and/or bronchiolitis is particularly difficult in acute settings, and recurrent wheezing has been associated with the development of asthma and respiratory viral infections [32-34].”

Reviewer #1

COMMENT 1. As the authors note, there is a robust literature on respiratory outcomes

among infants born preterm. Why include this group in the study? How does this study

add to what is already known?

RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer that the effects of duration of gestation on early-life

respiratory outcomes have been widely studied. However, comparisons of outcomes

from infants born preterm with those with alterations in fetal growth (SGA, LGA) are

scarce in the scientific literature. We have provided further clarifications about the comparative purpose of our study under objective 2 (Lines 92-95): “(2) To compare age-specific trajectories of total respiratory health services utilization across adverse birth outcomes. Results from this

study may improve our understanding of the relative importance of alterations in fetal

growth and duration of gestation in early childhood healthcare pathways.”

COMMENT 2. Can the authors include a physiologic rationale/hypothesis for why

infants born SGA or LGA might have increased risk for respiratory morbidity in

childhood?

RESPONSE: We have added in the introduction section a paragraph describing a potential

physiologic rationale linking SGA and LGA to respiratory problems during childhood in

Lines 63-67: “For SGA, insufficient input of oxygen and metabolites linked to fetal growth restrictions could negatively impact the lung development of the fetus [2]. For LGA, both the higher risk of experiencing respiratory distress syndrome [11] and the reduced lung functional

capacity observed in obese infants may alter the risk of suffering respiratory problems

[12].“

COMMENT 3. Small note: ABO commonly refers to blood type groups and, as used here as shorthand for adverse birth outcomes, is a bit confusing for readers.

RESPONSE: We have changed the term adverse birth outcomes instead of the acronym ABO through the manuscript, including figures and tables.

COMMENT 4. The authors describe a “population-based cohort study” – can they comment on the percentage of births in Alberta represented in this cohort sample?

RESPONSE: Our cohort included singleton livebirths, which represented a 96.6% of the total births; the remaining 3.4% of births were multiple births. We have added this information into the Results section (Lines 232-233): “The birth cohort consisted of 206,994 live singleton births (Fig 1), which represent 96.6% of the total births registered in the province during the study period.”

COMMENT 5. How did the authors conceptualize the covariates they included in the analyses? Adjustment implies confounding, though it is not clear how factors like BPD serve as prior common causes of both exposure and outcome. Clarification is needed, as the conceptualization of the role of the covariates informs the appropriateness of the analytic strategies used. For example, BPD is more likely a mediator rather than confounder. Sex may be conceptualized as an effect modifier. A conceptual model or diagram would help the reader understand more clearly how the authors view the relationships among the variables.

RESPONSE: We used the covariates as control variables at baseline. They are treated as explanatory known risk factors associated with respiratory problems during the infant and early childhood stages, regardless of their role in causal pathways. Explaining causal pathways was not part of our research objectives. We aimed to generate measures of association balanced for other known risk factors. We have explained this in the methods’ section (Lines 174-178): “The previous clinical and sociodemographic characteristics were treated as risk factors associated with respiratory problems during early childhood stages regardless of their role in causal pathways (i.e., confounders, moderators, or effect-modifiers). Our comparative analysis was not aimed to formally test causal pathways, but in generating measures of association balanced for other known risk factors.”

COMMENT 6. The authors use a robust measure for SES – the Pampalon Material and Social Deprivation Index. As there are well-described associations between environmental and social risk and respiratory health in children, especially for those with asthma, why did the authors opt to adjust their analyses for this important driver of health? Can they present the effect estimates of the index on rates of admission/ED visits to allow readers to assess the magnitude of effect in relation to that of ABO?

RESPONSE: We have previously estimated the association between the Material and Social Deprivation Index on hospitalizations and ED visits for every single respiratory outcome using the same cohort. Those results were published at “Belon AP, et al. Health gradients in emergency visits and hospitalisations for paediatric respiratory diseases: A population-based retrospective cohort study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12639”. We have added a comment in the methods’ section (Lines 178-180): “Moreover, the essential role of socioeconomic in producing respiratory health differences for each respiratory condition included in this study has been previously evaluated [39].”

COMMENT 7. The longitudinal modeling is quite interesting and adds quite a bit to the study. Close to 90,000 individuals had more than 1 ED visit or hospitalization during the study period. It would be helpful to know how many children had 1, 2, 3, etc. visits over the 5 years. That is, how much information did each child contribute to the longitudinal analysis?

RESPONSE: We have referenced this information in the manuscript body (Lines 252-254):

“Fifty-eight percent of children had two or more ED visits, while 33% had two or more hospitalizations during the study period. The number of events per child until they turned five years of age are shown in the supplementary S1 and S2 Figs.”

COMMENT 8. Do the rates of admission/ED visits between ABO groups differ significantly in each year?

RESPONSE: We have indicated in the methods section (Lines 213-215): “Finally, for each year of life, we estimated the difference in marginal rates between the adverse birth group and the reference group using contrast tests with Bonferroni’s correction to adjust the 95% CIs”. The results are presented in Table 3. In order to clarify the statistical significance of effects and facilitate comparability of results, we have inserted an asterisk on Table 3 (“*”) to indicate statistically significant differences by year (p-value<0.05 after Bonferroni’s correction). See Lines 330-332: “*statistically significant differences (p-value < 0.05) between the corresponding adverse birth group and the reference group using Bonferroni’s correction of p-value for multiple comparisons.”

COMMENT 9. The authors describe their findings regarding children born SGA in the context of existing literature. One wonders why, in their study, the authors found lower rates of respiratory illness-related health services use compared to the other groups of children. Might they discuss why this may be the case? Is there a biologic mechanism at play or perhaps might this be a result of the modeling approach?

RESPONSE: We evaluated the rates for SGA at term to avoid the overlap between SGA cases with gestational age before 38 weeks and prematurity. It is probable that, for this reason, we did not find higher rates in the SGA group compared to the reference group. Furthermore, it is probable that the 2001-Canadian population chart used for the SGA case definition classifies small babies from immigrants’ populations (which have been growing in Alberta during since 2000) as SGA cases. We have expanded the Discussion section to address this issue (Lines 391-400)” “Additionally, the similar and even lower age-trajectories rates for the combined respiratory conditions for SGA at term compared to the reference group may be explained by the inclusion of exclusively SGA at term in the case definition. Most of the studies reporting SGA include SGA preterm cases, which limits comparability with our results. Another potential explanation for the small differences between rates may be related to the population growth chart that was used to classify SGA cases. The 2001 Canadian population growth chart likely classify small babies of certain immigrant populations as SGA cases. It is known that immigration in Alberta has been growing considerably since 2000 [51], and Heaman et al. [52] reported an odds ratio of 1.7 (95%CI: 1.1-2.4) for SGA related to recent immigrants to Canada.”

COMMENT 10: The findings regarding children born LGA are also intriguing. Why might respiratory distress at birth – often associated with maternal diabetes or macrosomia-related birth trauma among LGA infants – be linked to risk for respiratory morbidity during childhood in this group of children?

RESPONSE: We have added the following clarification in the Discussion to address the reviewer’s question. Lines 408-415: “Physiological pathways leading to respiratory problems in LGA babies remain unclear. It has been observed that LGA neonates have an increased risk of respiratory distress at birth [11], but it has also been reported that infants born large for gestational age are more likely to be obese [53]. A high prevalence of childhood obesity (around 30%) has been reported in Canada [54]. Obese children have several complications including breathing difficulties [53, 12]. This can be a potential explanation for the respiratory trajectories among LGA cases. Lack of longitudinal weight gain data in our research precluded exploration of the extent of respiratory morbidity among LGA cases that is associated with overweight.”

COMMENT 11: The graphical representation of hospitalization/ED visit rates by year show a striking decline between 1 and 5 years of age for all groups. This is consistent with prior literature, as risk for respiratory morbidity falls with age. The authors do not include this finding in their discussion section. What implications do these data have on clinical care and health policy?

RESPONSE: We have included in the discussion section the potential clinical care implications of this result. Lines 353-362: “The observed decline in respiratory health service utilization after the first two years of life for all analyzed groups is consistent with prior literature as lung development increases alveolarization during the first 2–4 years of life [41]. Our results showed that children who experienced PTB (moderate and very-PTB) and LGA had higher rates of respiratory health services utilization for the first 5 years compared to the reference group, suggesting that there is room for more preventive management to help families keep these children healthy at home. Targeted public health interventions are required to promote health and minimize respiratory illnesses in these babies to improve morbidity and decrease health care costs. As well, knowing that a patient is in a higher risk group such as LGA will help to direct strategies for parent/caregiver counseling.”

Reviewer #2

COMMENT 12. This population-based retrospective cohort study compared patterns of respiratory ED visits and hospitalizations during the first five years of life of children born with preterm birth, SGA at term or LGA at term, and demonstrated that SGA and LGA at term increased the use of respiratory health services utilization during early childhood, particularly for respiratory infections. Although the respiratory outcomes based on the ICD diagnostic codes were not necessarily accurate, the large sample size was a strength of this cohort study.

RESPONSE: Thank you for this comment.

COMMENT 13. The criteria to merge recurrent wheezing (R06.2) with asthma (J45) or bronchiolitis (J20-J21) should be specified).

RESPONSE: In the acute setting, physicians struggle to come up with accurate diagnostic codes for conditions with overlapping presentations such as bronchiolitis, wheeze and asthma. To complicate matters, there are differing ways in which a diagnosis of asthma is made, and guidelines have evolved over the years. This means that when using diagnostic codes, it is frequent that the three conditions overlap. We have explained the criteria to merge recurrent wheezing with asthma or bronchiolitis, and added three references. See Lines 147-151: “Recurrent wheezing (R06.2) events were merged with asthma or bronchiolitis based on the most prevalent condition after the first wheezing episode. This merge was made because early life diagnosis of asthma and/or bronchiolitis is particularly difficult in acute settings, and recurrent wheezing has been associated with the development of asthma and respiratory viral infections [32-34].”

COMMENT 14. Acute bronchitis (J22) could include the patients diagnosed as (J40.1), and (J20). Therefore, acute bronchiolitis (J21) and acute bronchitis (J20) should be separately analyzed.

RESPONSE: We have re-analyzed both acute bronchitis and acute bronchiolitis separately. We have made several modifications across the manuscript, in the methods section (Line 145), reporting of results (Lines 248-308), including a new Table 2 and forest plots (Figures 2 and 3) and also into the discussion section (Lines 379-383).

COMMENT 15. Age-specific trajectories of total respiratory health service utilization rates were analyzed. Incidences of respiratory diseases, especially infectious diseases, are well-known to change depending on the subjects’ age. Therefore, it is more informative to analyze age-specific trajectories of respiratory health service utilization due to bronchiolitis, croup, or asthma, separately.

RESPONSE: We originally focused on comparing population-level patterns of age-specific trajectories of total respiratory health services utilization across adverse birth outcomes to help understand the overall burden imposed by adverse birth conditions to respiratory health service use (see lines: 92-93). Based on your comment, we have included supplementary tables to present results of respiratory health service utilization trajectories for single respiratory outcomes (Tables A to H in S1 Appendix). We have also added a new paragraph (Lines 218-220) to report these results: “Age-specific trajectories of respiratory health services utilization for single respiratory conditions by birth groups were estimated and reported in the supplementary material (Tables A to H in S1 Appendix).”

COMMENT 16. The first paragraph in the discussion section is a mere repetition of the results, so that it should be concisely summarized.

RESPONSE: We have reworded the first paragraph in the discussion to concisely summarize the study results (Lines 341-351): “Using a population-based retrospective cohort design, this study found patterns of respiratory health services utilization in the first five years of life that were distinctive for the group of adverse birth outcomes evaluated. While PTB accounted for the highest rates of ED visits and/or hospitalizations for all respiratory conditions evaluated, SGA at term associated with higher rates of ED visits for other LRTI, higher hospitalizations rates for bronchiolitis and other URTI, but lower ED visit rates for croup. LGA at term resulted in higher rates of ED visits for croup and other URTI and for bronchitis and bronchiolitis hospitalizations. Age-specific trajectories of respiratory health services utilization rates throughout the first five years of life also showed distinct patterns among the adverse birth groups: increased rates among children born PTB, moderately high for children LGA at term, and similar or lower rates for SGA compared to the reference group.”

COMMENT 17. The reason why the discrepancy of the association between SGA at term and an increased risk of bronchitis was observed among different studies should be discussed.

RESPONSE: We have re-analyzed both acute bronchitis and acute bronchiolitis separately, following the reviewer recommendation in Comment #14. We have reworded a paragraph in the discussion section according to the new results (Lines 379-383): “Our results also align with those reported by Yoshimoto et al. [15], who did not find a significant association between SGA at term and an increased risk of bronchitis, pneumonia, and asthma hospitalizations at five years of age. However, we found high rates of hospitalizations for bronchiolitis, suggesting that SGA at term could be associated with inflammation of the small airways.”

Reviewer #3

COMMENT 18: The manuscript presents an interesting analysis of routinely collected perinatal and healthcare utilisation data from Canada. The data supports some commonly held beliefs around respiratory health in children who are born early, but also challenges some of the beliefs around the respiratory health of those children born either small or large for gestational age. The data are presented clearly and logically. For the most part and I think it adds to our knowledge in this area. The data is not freely available, but this is explained in the manuscript.

RESPONSE: Thank you for this positive feedback.

COMMENT 19. I have some small comments or suggestions which do not significantly impact the value of the manuscript. I think it would be useful if the authors could make some comment on the quality of data capture and also in their health system whether episodes are likely to have been missed. There is always an inherent inaccuracy in data coding. There is a short comment on how to code recurrent wheezing in the methods. I'm not sure that a European audience would be content with recurrent wheezing being diagnosed as bronchiolitis, with the exception may be of two or three episodes in the first winter in the first year of life.

RESPONSE: A reference related to the quality of administrative health data in Canada was originally included in the study limitations’ paragraph (see Lines 425-427), reference#55.

Based on your comment, we have added a little more about the rationale for high quality data in the Canadian administrative databases, and potential limitations (Lines 427-431): “A set of quality control measures to ensure high-quality hospitalization data are applied by the Canadian Institute for Health Information such as examining relationships between data elements and element edits to each abstract [55]. However, limitations of using single code diagnoses data for some conditions like asthma exist, which is difficult to diagnose using single coding administrative data [56] especially during early childhood.”

In relation to merging wheezing with bronchiolitis or asthma, we have added a rationale in Lines 147-151: “Recurrent wheezing (R06.2) events were merged with asthma or bronchiolitis based on the most prevalent condition after the first wheezing episode. This merge was made because the diagnosis of asthma and/or bronchiolitis early in life is particularly difficult in acute settings, and recurrent wheezing has been associated with the development of asthma and respiratory viral infections [32-34].”

COMMENT 20: The most interesting data actually relates to those children born small for gestational age or large for gestational age. There is some mention in the text about beliefs around respiratory outcomes in these children, but the references are perhaps not as complete as they might be. I'm also not entirely sure why multiple births were excluded, and the data is restricted to singleton births only.

RESPONSE: We have added explanation in Lines 109-111: “Multiple births, representing a small proportion of the total births (approximately 2.6%), were excluded as their neonatal and childhood outcomes are known to differ significantly as compared to the larger proportion of the singleton live births.”

COMMENT 21. There are a few typographical errors. There is an error at the beginning of the sentence in line 211. There is also an inappropriate use of the semicolon in line 214. I'm sure there may be one or two others that I have missed.

RESPONSE: Thank you for this feedback. We have reviewed the manuscript and corrected typographical errors throughout.

COMMENT 22. The terminology or abbreviation for adverse back birth outcomes is the same as that used for ABO blood groups and in the text 'ABO type' is referred to. I can't think of a good alternative for 'adverse birth outcomes' but I would certainly avoid the phrase 'ABO type'.

RESPONSE: We have used adverse birth outcomes groups instead of the ABO acronym. We have made the corresponding changes through the manuscript.

COMMENT 23. In the discussion around respiratory health outcomes in children born small for gestation age, emphasis is made around those few diagnoses where healthcare utilisation is increased. Actually, the most surprising thing about the data for those children born small for gestational age is how little their respiratory health appears to be affected. I think this could be discussed a little more. Finally, the Forrest plots presented are visually appealing and helpful for the reader. I do wonder if the diagnoses list for each adverse birth outcomes group and the control group should perhaps be in the same order (although this might be difficult to arrange as Forrest plots software tends to present as the authors have shown).

RESPONSE: We have sorted the presentation of results in the Forest Plot figures based on the OR to easily observe the respiratory outcomes more affected by each adverse birth condition. As per reviewer recommendation #14, we have re-done the forest plots (Figures 2 and 3) to present separate results for bronchitis and bronchiolitis.

COMMENT 24. I think this is a useful paper and certainly merits publication.

RESPONSE: Thank you for this kind feedback.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Cover Letter and Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Harald Ehrhardt

9 Feb 2021

Patterns of respiratory health services utilization from birth to 5 years of children who experienced adverse birth outcomes

PONE-D-20-22831R1

Dear Dr. Ospina,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Harald Ehrhardt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have addressed all questions satisfactorily and completely. The manuscript is now suitable for publication.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: I feel the authors have mostly addressed my minor comments, and also appear to have taken on board the comments of the other reviewers.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Yusei Ohshima

Reviewer #3: Yes: Dr Gary M. Doherty

Acceptance letter

Harald Ehrhardt

11 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-22831R1

Patterns of respiratory health services utilization from birth to 5 years of children who experienced adverse birth outcomes

Dear Dr. Ospina:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Harald Ehrhardt

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. STROBE statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of cohort studies.

    (DOC)

    S1 Fig. Cumulative percentage (%) of the number of ED-visits per child.

    (TIFF)

    S2 Fig. Cumulative percentage (%) of the number of hospitalizations per child.

    (TIFF)

    S1 Table. Rate ratios for respiratory hospitalizations and ED visits from birth to five years for adverse birth groups.

    (PDF)

    S1 Appendix. Age-specific trajectories of respiratory health services utilization for single respiratory conditions by birth groups.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Cover Letter and Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because it is held securely in coded form at Alberta Health Services. Alberta Health Services is the legal custodian of the original data. Alberta Health Services’ policies and acts (e.g., Health Information Act of Alberta) guarantee the security, privacy and confidentiality of the patient data. Data agreement with Alberta Health Services prohibits researchers from making the dataset publicly available. Access to data may be granted to those who meet pre-specified criteria for confidential access. Data are available from Alberta Health Services Provincial Research Data Services for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from Alberta Health Services’ (AHS) Health System Access (HSA): https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/research/page8579.aspx. More information at: research.administration@ahs.ca.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES