DEVELOPMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF INFANTS BORN PRETERM: COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CHRONOLOGICAL AND CORRECTED AGES

Autores

  • Cibelle Kayenne Martins Roberto Formiga Physical therapist, PhD in Medical Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Physical Therapy of the State University of Goiás (UEG), Goiânia, GO, Brazil
  • Martina Estevam Brom Vieira Physical Therapist, Master of Science, Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Therapy of the State University of Goiás (UEG), Goiânia, GO. Doctoral student, Department of Neurosciences and Behavior, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil
  • Maria Beatriz Martins Linhares PhD in Psychology, Associate Professor, Department of Neurosciences and Behavior, Ribeirão Preto Medical School, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.103020

Palavras-chave:

infant, premature, child development, evaluation.

Resumo

Objective: To compare the global and motor development of infants born preterm, regarding the performance in the chronological age and corrected age for prematurity. Methods: This is a crosssectional study. The sample was comprised of 182 preterm infants (< 37 weeks of gestational age) and low birth weight (< 2,500 grams) belonging to the following age groups: 2-4 months (n = 182), 4-6 months (n = 146), and 6-8 months (n = 112). The global development was assessed through the Denver-II test in the three age groups, and the motor development was assessed through the Test of Infant Motor Performance in 2-4 months group and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale in 4-6 and 6-8 months group. The infants‘ performance classifications in the chronological and corrected ages were compared through the McNemar’s test. Results: The global and motor development was delayed in 75% to 91% of the infants, regarding the chronological age in all three age groups. Otherwise, concerning the corrected age for prematurity, the delayed performance was detected in 33% to 51% of the infants in all three age groups (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The development assessments taking on the chronological age could overestimate risks and problems in the first year of age.

Referências

World Health Organization (WHO). Born too soon: the global action report on preterm birth. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2012.

Formiga CKMR, Linhares MBM. Follow-up do desenvolvimento do bebê de risco. In: Sarmento GJV. Fisioterapia respiratória em pediatria e neonatologia. 2. ed. Barueri: Manole, 2011; p.556-73.

Vieira ME, Linhares MB. Developmental outcomes and quality of life in children born preterm at preschool- and school-age. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2011; 87(4): 281-91. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2223/JPED.2096

Blasco P. A preterm birth: to correct or not correct. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1989; 31(6): 816-21. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1989.tb04080.x

Lems W, Hopkins B, Samson JF. Mental and motor development in preterm infants: the issue of corrected age. Early Hum Dev. 1993; 3491-2): 113-23. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-3782(93)90046-W

Matilainen R. The value of correction for age in the assessment of prematurely born children. Early Hum Dev. 1987; 15(5): 257-64. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-3782(87)90048-X

Formiga CKMR, Linhares MBM. Motor development curve from 0 to 12 months in infants born preterm. Acta Paediatr. 2011; 100(3): 379-84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2010.02002.x

Mancini MC, Carvalho DJ, Gontijo DT. Efeitos da correção da idade gestacional no desempenho motor grosso e fino de crianças pré-termo aos dois anos de idade. Temas Desenvolv. 2002; 11(64): 12-9.

Zanini PQ, Hayashida M, Hara PS, Lima AC, Castro SS, Bueno CF, et al. Análise da aquisição do sentar, engatinhar e andar em um grupo de crianças pré-termo. Fisioter Pesquisa. 2002; 9(2): 57-62. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/fpusp.v9i2.79653

Raniero EP, Tudella E, Mattos RS. Padrão e ritmo de aquisição das habilidades motoras de lactentes pré-termo nos quatro primeiros meses de idade corrigida. Rev Bras Fisioter. 2010; 14(5): 396-403. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/

1590/S1413-35552010000500008

Miller G, Dubowitz LMS, Palmer P. Follow-up of preterm infant: is correction of developmental quotiente for prematurity helpful? Early Hum Dev. 1984; 9(2): 137-44. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0378-3782(84)90094-X

Piper MC, Byrne PJ, Darrah J, Watt MJ. Gross and fine motor development of preterm infants at eight to 12 months of age. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1989; 31(5): 591-7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8749.1989.tb04044.x

Restiffe AP, Gherpelli JLD. Comparison of chronological and corrected ages in the gross motor assessment of low-risk preterm infants during the first year life. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2006; 64(2b): 418-25. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0004-282X2006000300013

Mancini MC, Teixeira S, Araújo LG, Paixão ML, Magalhães LC, Coelho ZAC, et al. Estudo do desenvolvimento da função motora aos 8 e 12 meses de idade em crianças nascidas pré-termo e a termo. Arq Neuropsiquiatr. 2002; 60(4): 974-80. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0004-282X2002000600017

D’Agostino JA. An evidentiary review regarding the use of chronological and adjusted age in the assessment of preterm infants. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2010; 15(1): 26-32. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6155.2009.00215.x

Frankenburg WK, Dodds JB, Archer P, Shapiro H, Bresnick B. The Denver II: a major revision and restandardization of denver developmental screening test. Pediatrics. 1992; 89(1): 91-7.

Figueiras ACM, Souza ICN, Rios VG, Benguigui Y. Manual para vigilância do desenvolvimento infantil no contexto da AIDPI. Washington: OPAS, 2005.

Campbell SK, Kolobe THA, Osten ET, Lenke M, Girolami G. The Test of infant motor performance. Test user’s manual version 1.4. Copyright Suzann K. Campbell; 2001.

Campbell SK, Kolobe THA, Osten ET, Lenke M, Girolami G. Construct validity of the Test of infant motor performance. Phys Ther. 1995; 75(7): 585-96.

Campbell SK, Kolobe THA, Wright B, Linacre JM. Validity of Test of Infant Motor Performance for prediction of 6, 9 and 12 month scores on the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2002; 44(4): 263-72.

Piper MC, Darrah J. Motor assessment of the developing infant. EUA: W.B. Saunders Company; 1994.

Herrero D, Gallo PR, Fujimori M, Monteiro CBM, Valenti VE, Tavares CM, et al. Motor development of infants exposed to maternal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) but not infected. Int Arch Med. 2013; 6:45. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1755-7682-6-45

Piper MC, Pinnell LE, Darrah J, Maguire T, Byrne PJ. Construction and validation of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Can J Public Health. 1992; 83(Suppl. 2): S46-50.

Darrah J, Piper MC, Watt M. Assessment of gross motor skills of at-risk infants: predictive validity of the Alberta Infant Motor Scale. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1998; 40(7): 485-91.

Santos RS, Araújo APQC, Porto MAS. Early Diagnosis of abnormal development of preterm newborns: assessment instruments. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2008; 84(4): 288-99. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.2223/JPED.1815

Parry G, Tucker J, Tarnow-Mordi W; UK Neonatal Staffing Study Collaborative Group. CRIB II: an update of the clinical risk index for babies score. Lancet. 2003; 361(9371): 1789-91. 27. Volpi SCP, Rugolo LMSS, Peraçoli JC, Corrente JE. Aquisição de habilidades motoras até a marcha independente em prematuros de muito baixo peso. J Pediatr (Rio J). 2010; 86(2): 143-148. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2223/JPED.1989

Den Ouden L, Rijken M, Brand R, Verloove-Vanhorick SP, Ruys JH. Is it correct to correct? Developmental milestones in 555 “normal” preterm infants compared with term infants. J Pediatr. 1991;118(3):399-404. DOI: http://

dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3476(05)82154-7

Albuquerque RC, Gagliardo HG, Lima AC, Guerra MQ, Rabelo AR, Cabral-Filho JE. Visuomotor behaviour of preterm infants in the first month of life. A comparison between the chronological and corrected ages. Rev Neurol. 2009; 48(1):13-6.

Araújo PPC, Moura FOF, Valenti VE, Gallo MS, Camargo MR, Say KG, et al. Stabilometric parameters analysis in children with visual disorder. Int Arch Med. 2014; 7:1. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1755-7682-7-1

Nicolau CM, Costa APBM, Hazime OH, Krebs VLJ. Desempenho motor em recém-nascidos pré-termo de alto risco. Rev Bras Crescimento Desenvol Hum. 2011; 21(2): 327-34.

Synnes A, Anderson PJ, Grunau RE, Dewey D, Moddemann D, Tin W, et al. Predicting severe motor impairment in preterm children at age 5 years. Arch Dis Child. 2015; 100(8): 748-53. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2014-307695

Silva DI, Veríssimo MOR, Mazza VA. Vulnerability in the child development: influence of public policies and health programs. J Hum Growth Dev. 2015; 25(1): 11-18. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.96760

Kirigia JM, Kirigia DG. The essence of governance in health development. Int Arch Med. 2011; 4:11. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1755-7682-4-11

Guimarães FAB, Assis CD, Vieira MEB, Formiga CKMR. Evaluation of teaching materials prepared for guidance of caregivers and day care teachers on child development. J Hum Growth Dev. 2015; 25(1): 27-40. DOI: http://

dx.doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.96764

Silva J, Fronio JS, Lemos RA, Ribeiro LC, Aguiar TS, Silva DT, et al. Pacing opportunities at home and skill of children with potential changes in functional development. J Hum Growth Dev. 2015; 25(1): 19-26. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7322/jhgd.96763

Downloads

Publicado

2015-10-20

Edição

v. 25 n. 2 (2015)

Seção

Pesquisa Original

Licença

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR JOURNAL  PUBLISHERS

 

Publishers who are Committee on Publication Ethics members and who support COPE membership for journal editors should:

 

Publishers should:

 

  • Define the relationship between publisher, editor and other parties in a contract
  • Respect privacy (for example, for research participants, for authors, for peer reviewers)
  • Protect intellectual property and copyright
  • Foster editorial independence

 

Publishers should work with journal editors to:

 

  • Set journal policies appropriately and aim to meet those policies, particularly with respect to:

–         Editorial  independence

–         Research ethics, including confidentiality, consent, and the special requirements for human and animal research

–         Authorship

–         Transparency and integrity (for example, conflicts of interest, research funding, reporting standards

–         Peer review and the role of the editorial team beyond that of the journal editor

–         Appeals and complaints

  • Communicate journal policies (for example, to authors, readers, peer reviewers)
  • Review journal policies periodically, particularly with respect to new recommendations from the COPE
  • Code of Conduct for Editors and the COPE Best Practice Guidelines
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record
  • Assist the parties (for example, institutions, grant funders, governing bodies) responsible for the investigation of suspected research and publication misconduct and, where possible, facilitate in the resolution of these cases
  • Publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions
  • Publish content on a timely basis