Open Access

The impact of preterm birth <37 weeks on parents and families: a cross-sectional study in the 2 years after discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes201715:38

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0602-3

Received: 11 July 2016

Accepted: 24 January 2017

Published: 16 February 2017

Abstract

Background

Little is known about the quality of life of parents and families of preterm infants after discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). Our aims were (1) to describe the impact of preterm birth on parents and families and (2) and to identify potentially modifiable determinants of parent and family impact.

Methods

We surveyed 196 parents of preterm infants <24 months corrected age in 3 specialty clinics (82% response rate). Primary outcomes were: (1) the Impact on Family Scale total score; and (2) the Infant Toddler Quality of Life parent emotion and (3) time limitations scores. Potentially modifiable factors were use of community-based services, financial burdens, and health-related social problems. We estimated associations of potentially modifiable factors with outcomes, adjusting for socio-demographic and infant characteristics using linear regression.

Results

Median (inter-quartile range) infant gestational age was 28 (26–31) weeks. Higher Impact on Family scores (indicating worse effects on family functioning) were associated with taking ≥3 unpaid hours/week off from work, increased debt, financial worry, unsafe home environment and social isolation. Lower parent emotion scores (indicating greater impact on the parent) were also associated with social isolation and unpaid time off from work. Lower parent time limitations scores were associated with social isolation, unpaid time off from work, financial worry, and an unsafe home environment. In contrast, higher parent time limitations scores (indicating less impact) were associated with enrollment in early intervention and Medicaid.

Conclusions

Interventions to reduce social isolation, lessen financial burden, improve home safety, and increase enrollment in early intervention and Medicaid all have the potential to lessen the impact of preterm birth on parents and families.

Keywords

Impact on family Impact on parents Prematurity High-risk infant Post-discharge

Background

In the United States, nearly 500,000 infants, or 11.7% of all live births, are born preterm (<37 weeks’ gestation) each year [1, 2]. Preterm birth and the sometimes associated prolonged newborn hospitalization are great family stressors, and can lead to subsequent family dysfunction [35].

All preterm infants are at risk for re-hospitalization, as well as medical and neurodevelopmental complications, even moderate to late preterm infants (born at 32 to <37 weeks’ gestation) [6]. A particularly challenged sub-group is very low birth weight (VLBW) infants or those born < 1500 g. More than 90% of VLBW infants are discharged home from the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The burden of continued health and developmental problems faced by these infants is substantial [79]. For example, compared with normal birth weight children, VLBW children face a 2–3 fold greater risk for visual and hearing impairment, speech delays and attention disorders [10, 11]; may have poor feeding and growth, respiratory complications, and face neurocognitive difficulties [1216].

Given these ongoing problems and risks, families of preterm children often must manage numerous medical and developmental needs above and beyond what is required for a healthy full term infant, for months or even years after the neonatal discharge. For example, during the first year of life, VLBW infants are prone to re-hospitalization and require increased outpatient care [1719]. Parents must transport their child for medical appointments and therapies, communicate with the child’s pediatrician and other healthcare providers, and are often responsible for daily tasks, such as administering medications and monitoring chronic conditions.

The intensity of care and high level of vigilance required by families to meet the needs of their preterm child makes it likely that having a preterm child adversely affects the quality of life of the parents and the family overall. The 2006 Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) report on Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences and Prevention stressed the importance of assessing aspects of family and parent quality of life and stress beyond maternal psychological well-being [2022]. A better understanding of the impact of preterm birth on parent and family quality of life, as well as modifiable factors that predispose parents and families to greater or lesser impact would inform community-based and other structured assistance programs designed to lessen the impact.

Our main research question was, “Are modifiable characteristics (such as the use of community based and public assistance programs, financial burden, and health related social problems) associated with the impact of preterm birth on parents and families after NICU discharge?” The Anderson and Aday health utilization model [23, 24] provides a useful framework for addressing our research question because it uniquely captures the constructs of access, need, and quality of life. As presented in Fig. 1, we conceptualized potentially modifiable characteristics that influence parent and family impact as: (1) use of community based developmental services and public assistance programs; (2) financial burden; (3) health related social problems. We also specified predisposing characteristics (including socio-demographics and infant health characteristics) related both to modifiable characteristics and to outcomes that could act as confounders.
Fig. 1

Conceptual Model. Adapted from Phillips [74]

Our specific aims were (1) to describe the impact of preterm birth on parents and families and (2) and to identify potentially modifiable determinants of parent and family impact. Specific variables of interest based on previous literature, were use of community-based resources, financial burden and health-related social problems [25].

Methods

Study design and participants

This was a cross-sectional study. We enrolled one parent (mother or father) of preterm (<37 weeks gestation) infants attending 3 outpatient clinics at a large tertiary children’s hospital. One clinic provides multidisciplinary medical and neurodevelopmental follow-up for infants with gestational age <32 completed weeks or birth weight <1500 g discharged from one of 3 large, academic NICU’s and affiliated community-based Level II nurseries, and for more mature or heavier preterm infants with severe medical conditions and/or social risk factors (101 participants enrolled). The second clinic provides pediatric pulmonary care for infants with lung disease that originates in the newborn period, predominantly bronchopulmonary dysplasia (57 participants enrolled). The third clinic provides follow-up care for infants who have suffered neurologic injury during the fetal or newborn period (38 participants enrolled). While some patients were seen at more than one clinic, they were only enrolled once in the study.

We included parents of preterm infants who were up to 24 months corrected age (age from term equivalent). Parents must have been able to answer questions in English or Spanish. If the infant was a multiple, only one response was collected from the family. Study staff provided eligible families with a letter describing the study. Consent was obtained when the parent agreed to complete the questionnaire, which was administered on a laptop (with privacy screens) in the clinic waiting room or examination room. Participants were provided a small incentive to complete the survey.

The Boston Children's Hospital and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles human subjects committees approved the study protocol. Approximately 75% of preterm infants are referred to high-risk infant follow up programs. [3] In this study, of the 239 eligible participants from October, 2011 to June, 2012, 196 completed the questionnaire (82% response rate). The questionnaire is available as Additional file 1.

Measurements

Measurements of primary outcomes, modifiable characteristics and potential confounders (predisposing characteristics) are summarized in Additional file 2: Table S1.

Impact on family

The Impact on Family (IOF) [2628] measures the global impact of pediatric disability on the family and has been validated on samples of children with chronic health conditions, including preterm birth [25]. The IOF total score is derived from a 27-item questionnaire. For each item, parents indicate the extent to which they agree with a statement regarding the negative impact of the child on the family. Anchors for a 4-point Likert scale were: strongly agree; agree; disagree; and strongly disagree. Examples of IOF items are: “The illness is causing financial problems for the family” and “Our family gives up things because of illness.” IOF subscales include financial impact (8 points), disruption of planning (20 points), caretaker burden (12 points), and familial burden (16 points) for total possible score of 56 points. The total negative impact score served as our summary measure of family burden (higher scores indicate greater family burden).

In a previous study, internal consistency was high for the overall IOF Scale (Cronbach alphas for total impact, 0.83 to 0.89), but lower for financial (0.68 to 0.79) and coping (0.46 to .52) items [26]. High total scores on the IOF are associated with maternal psychiatric symptoms, poor child health, poor child adjustment, increased child hospitalizations, lower maternal education, and maternal receipt of public assistance [2729], providing evidence for construct validity.

Impact on parent

The Infant Toddler Quality of Life Questionnaire™ (ITQOL) was developed in 1994 for use in children from 2 months to 5 years of age as a “profile measure” for health status and health-related quality of life. ITQOL adopts as its conceptual framework the World Health Organization's definition of health as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not just the absence of disease [30]. It has been used both in randomized clinical trials [31] and observational studies, and is accepted favorably for its ease of use and understandability [32].

In this study, we used the Family Burden scales of the ITQOL, which cover two parent-focused concept subscales, impact-emotion and impact-time, due to caring for their infant or toddler [30, 32, 33]. The parent impact-emotion domain consists of seven items in which the parent is asked to rate how much anxiety or worry each of the child characteristics described in the items has caused during the past 4 weeks (i.e., feeding/sleeping/eating habits; physical health, emotional well being, learning abilities, ability to interact with others; behavior and temperament). The parent impact-time domain consists of seven items in which the parents is asked to rate how much of his/her time was limited for personal needs because of the problems with the child’s personal needs during the past 4 weeks. Internal consistency for the ITQOL parent-impact emotion and parent-impact time scales has been reported in three different populations, a Dutch general population sample (0.61, 0.64) [34], a functional abdominal pain sample (0.72, 0.73) [35] and a burn injury sample (0.79, 0.84) [30, 36].

Raw subscale scores are converted to standardized scores on a 0–100 continuum [3740]. For each scale, higher scores indicate less emotional impact and fewer time limitations on the parent (in other words, higher scores represent more favorable outcomes).

Potentially modifiable characteristics

Use of community-based resources

Participants were asked yes/no questions about the use of community-based developmental resources (such as early intervention programs), use of social services such as food assistance programs, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and the Women, Infant, Children’s program as well as energy assistance/disability programs such the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and receipt of Supplemental Security Income (SSI).

Financial Burden

In addition to questions about employment for the participating parent and his/her partner, we asked 6 yes/no questions from the 2007 Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey [4144] regarding unexpected costs, increased bills, increased out-of-pocket expenses and financial worry.

Health-related social problems

HelpSteps.com is a survey designed to identify health-related social problems. Development of HelpSteps involved literature review and key informant interviews with health and social services experts, yielding an initial list of 25 social domains. Of those, the 5 most relevant domains were identified using a modified Delphi technique: (1) access to health care, (2) housing, (3) food security (4) income security and (5) intimate partner violence [4548]. Most questions about these domains were adapted from previous surveys (e.g. National Health Interview Survey [49], the American Housing Survey [50], the Philadelphia Survey of Work and Family [51] and the Childhood Community Hunger Identification Project [52]), while a few newly written items were also incorporated into the final HelpSteps survey. In terms of content validity, the domains covered in HealthSteps are well-recognized as being closely tied to health outcomes and costs [53]. HelpSteps is highly effective in identifying problems that can be addressed by referral to appropriate social services [46, 47] and a qualitative study revealed that over 2/3 of participants found the HealthSteps questions to be highly relevant to their own problems [48].

Predisposing characteristics (potential confounders)

Infant health and development

We obtained information from the medical record regarding delivery and complications during the neonatal hospitalization. We asked parents questions about their infant’s health status since discharge including the number of emergency department visits, monthly clinic appointments, and hospitalizations, immunizations, dependence on technology, and administration of prescription medications.

To assess infant development, we used the Motor and Social Development (MSD) scale [54], which was developed by the National Center for Health Statistics to measure motor, social and cognitive development of young children. Of 48 items derived from standard measures of child development, including the Bayley Scales, Gesell Scale, and Denver Developmental Screening Test, parents complete 15 age-specific items, which ask about specific developmental milestones such as laughing out loud, pulling to stand, and saying recognizable words [55]. We selected the MSD because it is brief and allows for scoring based on a large, national sample [56] with a normative mean of 100 and standard deviation 15, similar to other developmental tests. Higher scores indicate better development. In a previous study of former preterm infants, we showed that the MSD has good internal consistency (Cronbach alpha 0.65-0.88) and is modestly correlated with Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Devleopment, 3rd edition, a gold standard professionally administered neurodevelopmental test [56]. Another study reported that infants with lower gestational age at birth have lower scores on the MSD [54]. Although the MSD includes a cognitive, motor, and social subscales, the degree to which it is sensitive to language/communication delays is unknown, which is a potential limitation.

Statistical analysis

Our main outcomes were: (1) impact on family total score; (2) impact on parent score determined by the concept of emotion; and (3) impact on parent score determined by the concept of limitation of time. Potentially modifiable determinants included the use of community-based resources, financial burden, and health-related social problems. Potential confounders (predisposing characteristics) were socio-demographics and infant pre-disposing and post-discharge characteristics.

In bivariate analyses, we compared outcome scores across categories of predisposing characteristics (potential confounders) and potentially modifiable determinants. We calculated p-values using non-parametric tests (Wilcoxon Rank Sum or Kruskal Wallis). To identify potentially modifiable determinants independent of confounders on our primary outcomes, we created parsimonious multivariable models, adjusting for variables of a priori interest and for other characteristics found to be significant at p <0.1. We also examined each model using variance inflation factors (VIF) and did not detect significant collinearity (VIF ≤ 2 for all models).

We used SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) for analyses.

Results

Participant characteristics and outcomes

Predisposing characteristics of study participants and outcome measures are shown in Table 1. A majority of participants were white, non-Hispanic (67%). 52% reported an annual household income of ≥ $80,000 and 68% of mothers had attended at least some college. The median (IQR) gestational age of infants at birth was 28 weeks (26–31). The median (interquartile range, IQR) chronologic age of infants at the time of study participation was 10.4 months (7.5-17.2).
Table 1

Pre-disposing characteristics and unadjusted associations with impact on family and impact on parent scores (n = 196)a

  

Impact on familyb

Impact on parentc

  

Total score

Emotion score

Time limitations score

 

% of sample

Median (IQR)

p-value

Median (IQR)

p-value

Median (IQR)

p-value

Total cohort

 

23.5 (18–32)

 

82 (61–93)

 

90 (71–100)

 

Characteristic

Time from discharge (months)

   < 6

31

27 (21–35.5)

<0.04

78 (57–93)

<0.04

76 (67–95)

<0.04

   ≥ 6 to < 12

30

20.5 (17–30)

 

86 (64–96)

 

90 (81–100)

 

   ≥ 12 to < 18

24

22 (18–31)

 

86 (61–93)

 

90 (71–100)

 

   ≥ 18

15

23 (16–31)

 

82 (64–96)

 

90 (67–100)

 

Socio-demographics

Person completing survey

  Mother

77

23 (17–30)

0.07

85 (68–96)

<0.01

90 (74–100)

<0.01

  Father

23

27.5 (20–36)

 

69.5 (53–86)

 

86 (52–90)

 

Race/ethnicity

  White non-Hispanic

67

24.5 (18–33)

0.2

82 (61–93)

0.6

90 (71–100)

0.1

  Hispanic

7

20 (17–23.5)

 

89 (85.5-93)

 

100 (88–100)

 

  Black non-Hispanic

11

26 (18–41)

 

81 (61–100)

 

78 (57–100)

 

  Other

15

22 (17–36)

 

88 (71–98)

 

87 (70–94)

 

Income ($/Year)

   < 40,000

24

24 (19–38)

0.6

86 (69–93)

0.4

90 (71–100)

0.4

   ≥ 40,000 to <80,000

15

23.5 (17.5-35)

 

78 (66–96)

 

90 (52–100)

 

   ≥ 80,000

52

23 (17–30)

 

82 (61–93)

 

90 (76–95)

 

Missing

9

   

Highest level of education (either parent)

   ≤ High school

32

26 (19–39)

0.2

83.5 (61–93)

0.9

90 (62–100)

0.4

 At least some college

68

23 (18–30)

 

82 (64–93)

 

90 (76–100)

 

Language

  Non-English

6

26.5 (20–34)

0.5

85.5 (57–89)

0.9

85 (57–100)

0.8

  English

94

24 (18–32)

 

82 (64–93)

 

90 (71–100)

 

Infant characteristics

Birthweight (grams)

   < 500 to < 1000

53

25 (18–33)

0.06

75 (61–82)

0.2

100 (95–100)

0.2

   ≥ 1000 to < 1500

24

24 (17–30)

 

86 (69–96)

 

84 (62–100)

 

   ≥ 1500 to < 2500

17

18.5 (15–23.5)

 

86 (76–93)

 

90 (86–100)

 

   ≥ 2500

6

27 (20–36)

 

61 (18–90)

 

77 (33–100)

 

Gestational age (weeks)

    < 24 to < 28

41

26 (18–33)

0.07

82 (66–93)

0.2

88 (67–100)

0.8

   ≥ 28 to < 32

37

21 (17–28)

 

85 (66–96)

 

90 (71–100)

 

   ≥ 32 to < 34

9

26 (18–30)

 

81 (49–91)

 

81 (69–95)

 

   ≥ 34 to < 37

13

29 (20–41)

 

71 (35–93)

 

81 (57–100)

 

Multiple Birth

  Yes

15

25 (17–37)

0.44

77 (34–91)

0.7

81 (70–96)

0.7

  No

85

23 (18–33)

 

81 (60–92)

 

89 (70–99)

 

Neonatal co-morbidities d

  Yes

59

24 (18–33)

0.5

82 (64–95)

0.6

90 (71–100)

0.7

  No

41

23 (17.5-30)

 

82 (61–93)

 

90 (67–100)

 

Motor Social Development Score

   < 85

27

29 (20–36)

0.02

66 (48–91)

0.004

88 (59–98)

0.2

   ≥ 85

73

23 (17–30)

 

85 (69–93)

 

90 (71–100)

 

≥2 clinic appointments/month

  Yes

74

26 (18–35)

0.0002

79 (57–93)

0.002

90 (67–100)

0.07

  No

26

19 (17–24)

 

89 (75–96)

 

90 (81–100)

 

At least 1 re-admission to the hospital after discharge

  Yes

36

31 (20–41)

<0.001

71 (53–89)

0.002

81 (57–95)

0.004

  No

64

21 (17–27)

 

86 (69–96)

 

90 (76–100)

 

At least 1 visit to the emergency department after discharge

  Yes

35

26 (18.5-35)

0.1

75 (61–86)

0.004

79 (61.5-96)

0.002

  No

65

23 (17–30)

 

86 (64–96)

 

90 (76–100)

 

Use of medical technology e

  Yes

14

40 (29–46)

<0.01

69.5 (53–82)

<0.01

73.5 (52–90)

<0.01

  No

86

22 (17–30)

 

85.5 (66–95)

 

90 (74–100)

 

Receives at least 1 prescription medication daily

  Yes

65

27 (20–35)

<0.0001

75 (57–89)

<0.0001

86 (67–95)

0.003

  No

35

19 (17–23)

 

93 (78–100)

 

94 (81–100)

 

a P-values derived using Wilcoxon Rank Sum (for 2 sample comparisons) or Kruskal Wallis (for 3 sample comparisons) or Kruskal Wallis H (>3 sample comparison) tests

bDerived from Impact on Family Scale (Stein, et al. [27]). Higher score indicates higher impact. Impact on Family Scale (range of possible scores, 0 to 56)

cDerived from Infant Toddler Quality of Life (ITQOL) questionnaire (Landgraf et al. [30]). Higher score indicates lower impact. ITQOL scale (range of possible scores, 0 to 100)

dNeonatal co-morbidities include a diagnosis of: fetal growth restriction, surfactant deficiency, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage grade 3 or 4, patent ductus arteriosus, retinopathy of prematurity

eMedical technology includes use of: home oxygen, tracheostomy, gastrostomy tube, adaptive wheelchair/stroller

Unadjusted associations of predisposing characteristics (potential confounders) with outcomes

As shown in Table 1, among pre-disposing characteristics, the use of medical technology, receipt of at least one prescription medication daily, one or more readmission or emergency department visit after neonatal discharge, and 2 or more clinic appointments per month were all associated with greater impact on family, parents, or both. Additionally, having an infant with a low developmental score (MSD < 85) was associated with greater impact on the family and parent emotion. Fathers who completed the survey had higher impact scores than mothers on the parent-focused domains of emotion and time limitations. Of note when we performed an additional sensitivity analysis by running our multivariate models for mothers only, we found our multivariate model estimates were similar in magnitude and direction as the full models that included fathers.

Potentially modifiable characteristics and unadjusted associations with outcomes

Table 2 shows that use of public housing and public assistance program were associated with greater impact on family. Compensation for time taken off from work was associated with a lower parent emotional score (less parental impact) while use of social services, public housing, enrollment in Medicaid and an unsafe home environment were associated with a higher IOF score (greater family impact). Markers of financial burden (including unpaid time off work, increased out-of-pocket expenses, bills, debt and financial worry) and social isolation were associated with both greater family and parental impact.
Table 2

Potentially modifiable characteristics and unadjusted associations with impact on family and impact on parent scores (n = 196)a

  

Impact on familyb

Impact on parentc

  

Total score

Emotion score

Time limitations score

Characteristics

% of sample

Median (IQR)

p-value

Median (IQR)

p-value

Median (IQR)

p-value

Use of community-based services

Use of a community-based developmental program (early intervention)

 Yes

92

23 (18–31)

0.9

82 (61–93)

0.9

90 (71–100)

0.2

 No

8

28 (17–36)

 

82 (64–93)

 

83 (33–95)

 

Use of social services d

 Yes

45

26 (19–38)

0.02

82 (61–93)

0.9

90 (67–100)

0.8

 No

55

23 (17–30)

 

82 (64–93)

 

90 (71–100)

 

Use of public housing

 Yes

9

29 (22–41)

0.04

85 (57–93)

0.7

74 (47–100)

0.4

 No

91

23 (18–31)

 

82 (64–93)

 

90 (71–100)

 

Receive supplemental security income (SSI)

 Yes

23

23 (17–31)

0.8

86 (69–100)

0.1

95 (71–100)

0.1

 No

77

24 (18–32)

 

82 (61–93)

 

90 (71–95)

 

Use a community based clinic for primary care

 Yes

12

23 (19–41)

0.5

73 (57–96)

0.7

81 (67–100)

0.4

 No

88

23 (18–31)

 

83 (63–93)

 

90 (71–100)

 

Financial Burden since infant discharge

Participant employed

 Yes

68

23 (18–31)

0.7

82 (64–93)

0.9

90 (71–100)

0.4

 No

32

24 (18–35)

 

85 (61–93)

 

90 (67–100)

 

Partner employed

 Yes

88

21 (17–30)

0.2

85 (64–96)

0.5

90 (71–100)

0.5

 No

12

27 (22–28)

 

83.5 (64–89)

 

90 (67–95)

 

Any member has taken ≥ 3 h taken off from work without pay weekly

 Yes

51

27 (18–40)

<0.005

71 (53–89)

<0.005

81 (52–95)

<0.005

 No

49

21 (17–29)

 

86 (71–96)

 

90 (80–100)

 

Receives employer-based compensation for time off

 Yes

31

22 (18–31)

0.6

86 (75–96)

0.02

90 (76–100)

0.2

 No

69

24 (17–33)

 

79 (57–93)

 

90 (69–100)

 

No compensation (from any source) for time off

 No compensation

17

29 (18–41)

0.1

65 (50–89)

0.01

85 (47–100)

0.2

 Compensation

83

23 (17–30)

 

85 (68–89)

 

90 (76–100)

 

Unexpected costs incurred

 Yes

41

29 (19–39)

<0.01

75 (57–93)

<0.01

81 (59–95)

<0.01

 No

59

21 (17–29)

 

86 (69–96)

 

90 (76–100)

 

Increased bills

 Yes

19

30 (23–44)

<0.02

71 (53–86)

<0.02

76 (47–100)

<0.02

 No

81

22 (17–30)

 

86 (68–95)

 

90 (76–100)

 

Increased out-of-pocket expenses

 Yes

13

33 (23–44)

<0.04

75 (61–93)

<0.04

76 (43–100)

<0.04

 No

87

23 (18–30)

 

82 (64–93)

 

90 (71–100)

 

Increased financial worry

 Yes

59

27 (20–35)

<0.0001

75 (57–93)

<0.0001

81 (62–95)

<0.0001

 No

41

20 (17–27)

 

89 (75–96)

 

95 (86–100)

 

Collections were discussed prior to discharge

 Yes

19

30 (21–42)

<0.001

82 (69–93)

0.8

90 (71–100)

0.5

 No

81

23 (17–30)

 

85 (61–93)

 

90 (71–100)

 

Enrollment in Medi-caid

 Yes

33

27 (20–38)

0.04

82 (61–93)

0.5

90 (71–98)

0.9

 No

67

23 (17–31)

 

82 (64–93)

 

90 (71–100)

 

Health-related social problems

Home safety e

 Safe

91

23 (17–31)

0.03

85 (64–93)

0.2

90 (71–100)

0.05

 Unsafe

9

30 (23–43)

 

75 (57–89)

 

76 (43–90)

 

Domestic Violence

 Reported

1

23

0.9

82

0.9

100

0.2

 Not reported

99

24 (18–31)

 

84 (61–93)

 

90 (71–100)

 

Social isolation f

 Yes

16

30 (23–46)

<0.001

75 (57–82)

<0.001

76 (62–86)

<0.001

 No

84

22 (17–31)

 

86 (64–96)

 

90 (71–100)

 

aP-values derived using Wilcoxon Rank Sum (for 2 sample comparisons) or Kruskal Wallis (for 3 sample comparisons) tests

bDerived from Impact on Family Scale (Stein, et al. [27]). Higher score indicates higher impact. Impact on Family Scale (range of possible scores, 0 to 56)

cDerived from Infant Toddler Quality of Life (ITQOL) questionnaire (Landgraf, et al. [30]). Higher score indicates lower impact. ITQOL scale (range of possible scores, 0 to 100)

dUse of one or more public assistance programs: Supplemental nutritional assistance program for Women, Infants and Children, Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program

eUnsafe home environment constitutes water leaks, pests, or no heat

fSocial isolation defined by positive response to query about feelings of isolation

Adjusted associations of potentially modifiable characteristics with outcomes

Table 3 shows associations of potentially modifiable characteristics with the total IOF Scale scores, adjusting for potential confounders. Taking time off from work without pay, increased bills, financial worry, an unsafe home environment, and social isolation were all associated with higher total IOF scores, indicating greater impact. Similarly, Table 4 shows adjusted associations of potentially modifiable characteristics with impact on Parent Emotion and Time Limitation scores. Taking time off from work without pay and social isolation were associated with lower scores on both of these scales, indicating greater impact. Financial worry was associated with greater impact on parent time limitation, as was an unsafe home environment. In contrast, enrollment in early intervention and Medicaid programs were associated with higher parent time limitation scores, indicating less parental impact.
Table 3

Adjusted associations of potentially modifiable characteristics with total impact on family scores (n = 196)

Characteristics

Difference in impact on family scale (95% confidence interval)a

p-value

Use of community based resources

 Enrollment in early intervention

−1 (−8, 6.7)

0.8

 Use of social servicesc

5.7 (0.2, 11)

0.04

 Use of public housing

0.3 (−9.5, 10.1)

0.9

 Receive supplemental security income

−2.8 (−8.2, 3.2)

0.4

 Use of a community based clinic for primary care

−2.3 (−8.8, 4.1)

0.5

Financial burden since infant discharge

 Family member has taken ≥ 3 h/week off from work without pay

4.7 (0.8, 8.7)

0.02

 Family member has received compensation by employer for time off

1.3 (−2.9, 5.6)

0.5

 No compensation (from any source) for time off

4.8 (−0.3, 9.9)

0.06

 Financial burden

  Unexpected costs

1.5 (−2.8, 5.7)

0.7

  Increased bills

6.1 (0.4, 11.9)

0.04

  Increased out-of-pocket expenses

−1.5 (−7, 4.5)

0.6

  Financial worry

4 (0.2,7)

0.04

 Collections discussed prior to discharge

2.5 (−2.5, 7)

0.4

 Enrollment in medi-caid

1.3 (−3.5, 6)

0.6

Health related social problems

 Unsafe home environmentd

6.3 (0.2, 12.3)

0.04

 Social isolatione

8.5 (4, 12.9)

0.0003

Models adjusted for: infant birthweight (per 500 g increase), race, family annual household income, infant co-morbidities during hospitalization in NICU (including of the following: growth restriction, surfactant deficiency, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage grade 3 or 4, patent ductus arteriosus, retinopathy of prematurity)

aEstimates represent differences in points on Impact on Family Scale (range of possible scores, 0 to 56). Higher scores represent higher impact

cUse of one or more public assistance programs: Supplemental nutritional assistance program for Women, Infants and Children, Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program

dUnsafe home environment constitutes water leaks, pests, or no heat

eSocial isolation defined by positive response to query about feelings of isolation

Table 4

Adjusted associations of potentially modifiable characteristics with impact on parent emotion and time limitation scores (n = 196)a

Characteristics

Total (n = 196)b

 

Parent emotion points (95% confidence interval)

p-value

Use of community based resources

 Enrollment in early intervention

4.2 (−12, 20.5)

0.6

 Use of social servicesc

−2.3 (−14, 9.5)

0.7

 Use of public housing

7.9 (−13, 29)

0.5

 Receive supplemental security income

0.5 (−12, 13.3)

0.9

 Use of a community based clinic for primary care

1.9 (−12.3, 16)

0.8

Financial burden since infant discharge

 Family member has taken ≥ 3 h/week off from work without pay

−12.4 (−20, −4)

0.004

 Family member has received compensation by employer for time off

4.5 (−4.3, 14)

0.3

 No compensation (from any source) for time off

−5.2 (−16, 5)

0.4

 Financial burden

  Unexpected costs

−2.7 (−11, 6)

0.6

  Increased bills

−5 (−17, 7)

0.4

  Increased out-of-pocket expenses

2.5 (−9, 14)

0.4

  Financial worry

−4.7 (−13, 3)

0.3

 Collections discussed prior to discharge

1.1 (−9, 12)

0.8

 Enrollment in medi-caid

4.9 (−5, 15)

0.4

Health related social problems

 Unsafe home environmentd

−1.2 (−14, 12)

0.8

 Social isolatione

−11.2 (−21, −1)

0.03

 Characteristics

Total (n = 196)

 

Parent limitation on time score points (95% Confidence Interval)

p-value

Use of community based resources

 Enrollment in early intervention

20.2 (5.6, 34)

0.007

 Use of social servicesc

1.9 (−8.7, 12.5)

0.7

 Use of public housing

3.5 (−15, 22)

0.7

 Receive supplemental security income

0.1 (−15, 22)

0.7

 Use of a community based clinic for primary care

5.5 (−7, 18)

0.4

Financial burden since infant discharge

 Family member has taken ≥ 3 h/week off from work without pay

−8.8 (−16.9, −1)

0.03

 Family member has received compensation by employer for time off

5.4 (−3.5, 15)

0.2

 No compensation (from any source) for time off

−10.3 (−21, 0.5)

0.07

 Financial burden

  Unexpected costs

−1 (−9, 9)

0.9

  Increased bills

−4.9 (−17, 7.4)

0.4

  Increased out-of-pocket expenses

3.2 (−8, 15)

0.6

  Financial worry

−10.4 (−18, −2)

0.01

 Collections discussed prior to discharge

−6 (−17, 4.7)

0.3

 Enrollment in medi-caid

12.6 (2.6, 22)

0.01

Health related social problems

 Unsafe home environmentd

−13.2 (−26, −1)

0.04

 Social isolatione

−11.4 (−21, −2)

0.02

aEstimates represent differences in points on Infant and Toddler Life Questionnaire (range of possible scores, 0 to 100). Lower scores represent higher impact

bModels adjusted for: infant birthweight (per 500 g increase), race, family annual household income, infant co-morbidities during hospitalization in NICU (including: growth restriction, surfactant deficiency, necrotizing enterocolitis, intraventricular hemorrhage grade 3 or 4, patent ductus arteriosus, retinopathy of prematurity)

cUse of one or more public assistance programs: Supplemental nutritional assistance program for Women, Infants and Children, Transitional Aid to Families with Dependent Children, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program

dUnsafe home environment constitutes water leaks, pests, or no heat

eSocial isolation defined by positive response to query about feelings of isolation

Discussion

In this study, we described the impact of preterm birth on parents and families in the first 2 years after neonatal discharge. Our results support our conceptual model, which posits modifiable factors that are associated with the impact of preterm birth on parents and families, independent of infant health and socio-demographic characteristics. We identified several potentially modifiable factors that were associated with both higher and lower impact. In particular, social isolation, financial burdens such as taking unpaid time off from work, increased bills and financial worry, and an unsafe home environment were all associated with higher impact on at least one of our main outcomes. In contrast, enrollment in early intervention and Medicaid and use of public housing were associated with less parent impact.

Predisposing characteristics such as infant co-morbidities affected both impact on family scores and parental scores. Infant development affected parental scores for increased anxiety and emotion. Our findings were consistent with previous studies that the impact was greater among families whose preterm children demonstrated either a functional handicap or low developmental quotient [22, 25, 5759]. We also found that the use of prescription medications and durable medical equipment affected both parental impact scores and impact on family scores, which was consistent with other publications [20, 60]. Specifically, the use of medications and medical equipment may contribute to the substantial out-of-pocket expenditures that families may incur [61, 62]. As pressure mounts to reduce hospital length of stay and readmission rates, and as we move more complex care into the community, high out-of-pocket costs is an important factor that can contribute to parental and family strain.

Several studies have shown that preterm birth and an infant’s hospitalization can adversely affect the finances of families after the birth of a preterm or VLBW infant [20, 6063]. However, little is known about a more modifiable determinant such as the specifics of financial burden faced by families, or about the impact of financial burden on parent quality of life. In our study, we found that a lack of compensation for time off work was associated with both family and parent-time impact scores. Also, increased bills due to hospitalization and increased financial worry were associated with greater impact. Complementing our findings, 2 studies have reported the out-of-pocket costs incurred by families of preterm infants for outpatient services, medications, as well as indirect costs like lost productivity are significant especially during the first year after discharge [60, 64]. Specifically, Hodek et al. cited that co-payments for outpatient ancillary services and medications increased parental out-of-pocket expenses. Moreover, lost wages for missing work days may increase income losses [60]. Overall, by highlighting the specific aspects of financial burden most closely associated with parent and family impact, such as lack of compensation and increased bills, our results may inform targeted financial support programs for families of preterm infants after discharge. Moreover, our findings support that while annual income was not associated with impact on family, parental perspective on financial burden was, which should also be considered when caring for these families.

Another modifiable determinant are health related social problems. These are economic and social problems that can affect health such as food insecurity and substandard housing [45]. Prior studies have demonstrated the impact of substandard housing on child health such as increased infectious disease and injury [65]. However, we found that an unsafe home environment was associated with adverse parent-time impact and impact on the family. Timely receipt of public housing has been associated with improved health in other medical condtions [66]. Addressing housing concerns for families of preterm infants through existing public housing programs is a feasible approach to reducing the parental and family impact.

Another health related social problem that was associated with greater parental and family impact was social isolation. Other studies that have examined families of premature infants have found that “alienation” [67] and social isolation may have profound impact on parental emotion [68]. Jackson et al. described the paradigm of the process of acclimatization of caring for a premature infant as alienation, responsibility, confidence and familiarity, and that alienation may be protracted in this population [67]. Intervention strategies that have improved parental emotions often include education-behavioral models. For example, the Creating Opportunities for Parent Empowerment (COPE) program created by Melnyk, et al. was associated with reduced parental impact during transition home from the NICU [69, 70]. It is possible that programs like that one benefit families by reducing social isolation in months to years after discharge.

Another modifiable determinant is enrollment in a community-based developmental program like “Early Intervention (EI),” was associated with less impact on parental limitation of time. A recent meta-analysis suggests that community-based developmental programs had beneficial pooled effects on maternal anxiety, depressive symptoms, and self-efficacy [71]. Moreover, other studies have suggested that these programs can also empower families because of the collaborative process that EI offers; in turn, they have a deeper understanding of their child’s developmental needs [72].

Similarly to early intervention, we found that receipt of Medicaid was associated with lower impact scores on limitations on time. Other studies have demonstrated families who were registered with Medicaid showed improved “parent role confidence” and “parent-baby interaction” than those with private insurance [69]. While this result was unexpected, it has been speculated that parents with a higher socioeconomic status and private insurance may have higher expectations for themselves [69] and therefore may perceive an increased parental impact on their time versus those who utilize Medicaid. Overall, our results suggest that greater participation in public assistance programs may lessen familial and parental burden for this patient population.

A strength of our study was our high response rate (82%). Characteristics of the infants were very similar to other follow-up programs [25]. However, we studied families of infants presenting for follow-up care rather than the underlying population of families of infants receiving neonatal intensive care, potentially limiting generalizability. Moreover, we did sample both mothers and fathers, which may affect how some of our results are interpreted and parent gender may influence some of the measures including financial burden and social isolation [73]. Also, our study was cross-sectional making us unable to establish causation. While we adjusted for a number of potential confounders, like all observational studies, ours is subject to residual confounding. While we did not have a full term cohort control in comparison [25], nor data on those not enrolled, our aim was to elicit the experience of parents and families of preterm infants, as well as relationships with modifiable characteristics specific to this population.

Conclusions

In summary, we identified several predictors of increased family and parent impact in families of preterm infants. Of particular interest were the potentially modifiable factors including social isolation and financial burden, which were associated with greater impact, and use of community-based developmental services, public housing, and Medicaid which were associated with less impact. Our results suggest that interventions to target these factors, for example social and financial support programs, and efforts to increase enrollment in community-based developmental services and public health insurance programs, might lessen the impact of preterm birth on parents and families.

Abbreviations

IOF: 

Impact on family total score

ITQOL: 

Infant toddler quality of life

MSD: 

Motor and social development

NICU: 

Neonatal intensive care unit

PFB: 

Perceived financial burden

Declarations

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Richardson Fund, Department of Neonatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston MA, the Program for Patient Safety and Quality (PPSQ) at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA and the Medical Staff Organization at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

We would like to thank the families who participated in this study. We would also like to recognize Jane Stewart, MD, the director of the Infant Follow Up Program (IFUP) at Boston Children’s Hospital, Larry Rhein, MD, the director of the Center for Healthy Infant Lung Development (CHILD) program at Boston Children’s Hospital and Janet Soul, MD, the director of the Fetal Neurology Program at Boston Children’s Hospital who facilitated our study. We would also like thank Brooke Corder, the social worker at the IFUP who assisted with patient recruitment. We would also like to acknowledge Aaron Picklingis who developed the web-interface for the study questionnaire and Drs. Dionne Graham and Sheree Schrager who assisted with statistical analysis.

Funding

This study was also supported by the Richardson Fund with the Department of Neonatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston MA, the Program for Patient Safety and Quality (PPSQ) at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA and the Medical Staff Organization at Boston Children’s Hospital, Boston, MA.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to patient information, but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors’ contributions

Dr. Lakshmanan and Dr. Belfort made substantial contributions to designing the study, analyzing the data, and interpreting the results. Dr. Lakshmanan wrote the first draft of the manuscript. Ms. Agni collected the data and contributed to data analysis and drafting of the manuscript. Drs. Lieu, Fleegler and McCormick made substantial contributions to designing the study, interpreting the results, and critically revising the manuscript. Drs. Kipke and Friedlich also assisted in interpreting the results and revising the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Consent for publication

Not applicable. There is no identifiable data in this study.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent

The Boston Children's Hospital and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles human subjects committees approved the study protocol and participation consent was obtained from all subjects.

Financial disclosure

Dr. Lakshmanan is supported by National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (KL2TR001854). Dr. Belfort was supported by National Institutes of Health K23DK83817. The remaining authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Center for Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, USC Division of Neonatal Medicine, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles; Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California
(2)
Newborn and Infant Critical Care Unit, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles
(3)
Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California
(4)
Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California
(5)
Drexel School of Medicine
(6)
Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente
(7)
Division of Emergency Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital
(8)
Saban Research Institute, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles
(9)
Division of Newborn Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital
(10)
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
(11)
Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, The Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
(12)
Department of Pediatric Newborn Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital

References

  1. Hamilton BE, Hoyert DL, Martin JA, Strobino DM, Guyer B. Annual summary of vital statistics: 2010–2011. Pediatrics. 2013;131:548–58.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Wang CJ, McGlynn EA, Brook RH, et al. Quality-of-care indicators for the neurodevelopmental follow-up of very low birth weight children: results of an expert panel process. Pediatrics. 2006;117:2080–92.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Newborn AAoPCotFa. Hospital discharge of the high-risk neonate. Pediatrics. 2008;122:1119–26.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Garfield L, Holditch-Davis D, Carter CS, et al. Risk factors for postpartum depressive symptoms in low-income women with very low-birth-weight infants. Adv Neonatal Care. 2015;15:E3–8.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Howe TH, Sheu CF, Wang TN, Hsu YW. Parenting stress in families with very low birth weight preterm infants in early infancy. Res Dev Disabil. 2014;35:1748–56.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Thygesen SK, Olsen M, Ostergaard JR, Sorensen HT. Respiratory distress syndrome in moderately late and late preterm infants and risk of cerebral palsy: a population-based cohort study. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e011643.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Vohr BR, Wright LL, Dusick AM, et al. Neurodevelopmental and functional outcomes of extremely low birth weight infants in the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network, 1993–1994. Pediatrics. 2000;105:1216–26.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Hack M, Taylor HG, Drotar D, et al. Chronic conditions, functional limitations, and special health care needs of school-aged children born with extremely low-birth-weight in the 1990s. JAMA. 2005;294:318–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Saigal S, Doyle LW. An overview of mortality and sequelae of preterm birth from infancy to adulthood. Lancet. 2008;371:261–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. McCormick MC, Richardson DK. Premature infants grow up. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:197–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheung PY, Barrington KJ, Finer NN, Robertson CM. Early childhood neurodevelopment in very low birth weight infants with predischarge apnea. Pediatr Pulmonol. 1999;27:14–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. de Kieviet JF, Piek JP, Aarnoudse-Moens CS, Oosterlaan J. Motor development in very preterm and very low-birth-weight children from birth to adolescence: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2009;302:2235–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Aarnoudse-Moens CS, Smidts DP, Oosterlaan J, Duivenvoorden HJ, Weisglas-Kuperus N. Executive function in very preterm children at early school age. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2009;37:981–93.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Aarnoudse-Moens CS, Weisglas-Kuperus N, van Goudoever JB, Oosterlaan J. Meta-analysis of neurobehavioral outcomes in very preterm and/or very low birth weight children. Pediatrics. 2009;124:717–28.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. de Kieviet JF, Zoetebier L, van Elburg RM, Vermeulen RJ, Oosterlaan J. Brain development of very preterm and very low-birthweight children in childhood and adolescence: a meta-analysis. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54:313–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Burnett AC, Scratch SE, Lee KJ, et al. Executive Function in Adolescents Born <1000 g or <28 Weeks: A Prospective Cohort Study. Pediatrics 2015.Google Scholar
  17. Donohue PK. Health-related quality of life of preterm children and their caregivers. Ment Retard Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2002;8:293–7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Escobar GJ, Joffe S, Gardner MN, Armstrong MA, Folck BF, Carpenter DM. Rehospitalization in the first two weeks after discharge from the neonatal intensive care unit. Pediatrics. 1999;104:e2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Joffe S, Escobar GJ, Black SB, Armstrong MA, Lieu TA. Rehospitalization for respiratory syncytial virus among premature infants. Pediatrics. 1999;104:894–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Als H, Behrman R, Checchia P, et al. Preemie abandonment? Multidisciplinary experts consider how to best meet preemies needs at "preterm infants: a collaborative approach to specialized care" roundtable. Mod Healthc. 2007;37:17–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Behrman RaB, AS. 2007. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press (US); Preterm Birth: Causes, Consequences, and Prevention.Google Scholar
  22. Cronin CM, Shapiro CR, Casiro OG, Cheang MS. The impact of very low-birth-weight infants on the family is long lasting. A matched control study. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1995;149:151–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Aday LA, Andersen R. A framework for the study of access to medical care. Health Serv Res. 1974;9:208–20.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Raina P, O'Donnell M, Schwellnus H, et al. Caregiving process and caregiver burden: conceptual models to guide research and practice. BMC Pediatr. 2004;4:1.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Drotar D, Hack M, Taylor G, Schluchter M, Andreias L, Klein N. The impact of extremely low birth weight on the families of school-aged children. Pediatrics. 2006;117:2006–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Jessop DJ, Stein RE. Uncertainty and its relation to the psychological and social correlates of chronic illness in children. Soc Sci Med. 1985;20:993–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Stein RE, Jessop DJ. What diagnosis does not tell: the case for a noncategorical approach to chronic illness in childhood. Soc Sci Med. 1989;29:769–78.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Stein RE, Jessop DJ. Measuring health variables among Hispanic and non-Hispanic children with chronic conditions. Public Health Rep. 1989;104:377–84.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  29. Stein RE, Jessop DJ. The impact on family scale revisited: further psychometric data. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2003;24:9–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Landgraf JM, Vogel I, Oostenbrink R, van Baar ME, Raat H. Parent-reported health outcomes in infants/toddlers: measurement properties and clinical validity of the ITQOL-SF47. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:635–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Kruizinga I, Jansen W, van Sprang NC, Carter AS, Raat H. The Effectiveness of the BITSEA as a Tool to Early Detect Psychosocial Problems in Toddlers, a Cluster Randomized Trial. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0136488.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Flink IJ, Beirens TM, Looman C, et al. Health-related quality of life of infants from ethnic minority groups: the Generation R Study. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:653–64.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Flink IJ, Prins RG, Mackenbach JJ, et al. Neighborhood ethnic diversity and behavioral and emotional problems in 3 year olds: results from the Generation R Study. PLoS One. 2013;8:e70070.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Raat H, Landgraf JM, Oostenbrink R, Moll HA, Essink-Bot ML. Reliability and validity of the Infant and Toddler Quality of Life Questionnaire (ITQOL) in a general population and respiratory disease sample. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:445–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Oostenbrink R, Jongman H, Landgraf JM, Raat H, Moll HA. Functional abdominal complaints in pre-school children: parental reports of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:363–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. van Baar ME, Essink-Bot ML, Oen IM, et al. Reliability and validity of the Health Outcomes Burn Questionnaire for infants and children in The Netherlands. Burns. 2006;32:357–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. ITQOL: Infant Toddler Quality of Life Questionnaire. (Accessed December 2nd, 2016, at healthactchq.com.)Google Scholar
  38. Meert KL, Slomine BS, Christensen JR, et al. Family Burden After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Children. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2016;17:498–507.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. van Zellem L, Buysse C, Madderom M, et al. Long-term neuropsychological outcomes in children and adolescents after cardiac arrest. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41:1057–66.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Rolfsjord LB, Skjerven HO, Carlsen KH, et al. The severity of acute bronchiolitis in infants was associated with quality of life nine months later. Acta Paediatr. 2016;105:834–41.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Doty M, Rustgi SD, Schoen C, Collins SR. Maintaining health insurance during a recession: likely COBRA eligibility: an updated analysis using the Commonwealth Fund 2007 Biennial Health Insurance Survey. Issue brief. 2009;49:1–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Doty MM, Collins SR, Nicholson JL, Rustgi SD. Failure to protect: why the individual insurance market is not a viable option for most U.S. families: findings from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey. Issue brief. 2009;62:1–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Doty MM, Collins SR, Rustgi SD, Nicholson JL. Out of options: why so many workers in small businesses lack affordable health insurance, and how health care reform can help. Findings from the Commonwealth Fund Biennial Health Insurance Survey, 2007. Issue brief. 2009;67:1–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rustgi SD, Doty MM, Collins SR. Women at risk: why many women are forgoing needed health care. An analysis of the Commonwealth Fund 2007 Biennial Health Insurance Survey. Issue brief. 2009;52:1–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Fleegler EW, Lieu TA, Wise PH, Muret-Wagstaff S. Families' health-related social problems and missed referral opportunities. Pediatrics. 2007;119:e1332–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hassan A, Blood E, Pikcilingis A, Krull E, McNickles L, Marmon G, Woods E, Fleegler E. Improving Social Determinants of Health: Effectiveness of a web-based intervention. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(6):822-31. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2015.04.023.
  47. Hassan A, Blood EA, Pikcilingis A, et al. Youths' health-related social problems: concerns often overlooked during the medical visit. J Adolesc Health. 2013;53:265–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Wylie SA, Hassan A, Krull EG, et al. Assessing and referring adolescents' health-related social problems: qualitative evaluation of a novel web-based approach. J Telemed Telecare. 2012;18:392–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Statistics NCoH. National Health Interview Survey. Washington DC: Services UDoHaH, ed.; 1995.Google Scholar
  50. Bureau UC. The American Housing Survey. Washington DC: Development DoHaU, ed; 1994.Google Scholar
  51. Cress JFJ. The Philadelphia Survey of Child Care and Work. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University; 2003.Google Scholar
  52. Weinreb L, Wehler C, Perloff J, et al. Hunger: its impact on children's health and mental health. Pediatrics. 2002;110:e41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Accountable Health Communities Model. 2016. https://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/AHCM). Accessed 18 Dec 2016.
  54. Hediger ML, Overpeck MD, Ruan WJ, Troendle JF. Birthweight and gestational age effects on motor and social development. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2002;16:33–46.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. at http://www.nlsinfo.org/childya/nlsdocs/questionnaires/2006/Child2006quex/ MotherSupplement2006_Assessments.html#MOTORANDSOCIALDEVELOPMENT).
  56. Belfort MB, Santo E, McCormick MC. Using parent questionnaires to assess neurodevelopment in former preterm infants: a validation study. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013;27:199–207.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Rivers A, Caron B, Hack M. Experience of families with very low birthweight children with neurologic sequelae. Clin Pediatr. 1987;26:223–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor HG, Klein N, Minich NM, Hack M. Long-term family outcomes for children with very low birth weights. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;155:155–61.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Saigal S, Burrows E, Stoskopf BL, Rosenbaum PL, Streiner D. Impact of extreme prematurity on families of adolescent children. J Pediatr. 2000;137:701–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Hodek JM, von der Schulenburg JM, Mittendorf T. Measuring economic consequences of preterm birth - Methodological recommendations for the evaluation of personal burden on children and their caregivers. Heal Econ Rev. 2011;1:6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  61. Petrou S. Economic consequences of preterm birth and low birthweight. BJOG. 2003;110 Suppl 20:17–23.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. McCormick MC, Bernbaum JC, Eisenberg JM, Kustra SL, Finnegan E. Costs incurred by parents of very low birth weight infants after the initial neonatal hospitalization. Pediatrics. 1991;88:533–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Underwood MA, Danielsen B, Gilbert WM. Cost, causes and rates of rehospitalization of preterm infants. J Perinatol. 2007;27:614–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Schiffman JK, Dukhovny D, Mowitz M, Kirpalani H, Mao W, Roberts R, Nyberg A, Zupancic J. Quantifying the Economic Burden of Neonatal Illness on Families of Preterm Infants in the U.S. and Canada. San Diego, CA: Pediatric Academic Societies; 2015.Google Scholar
  65. Krieger J, Higgins DL. Housing and health: time again for public health action. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:758–68.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Rodgers JT, Purnell JQ. Healthcare navigation service in 2-1-1 San Diego: guiding individuals to the care they need. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43:S450–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Jackson K, Ternestedt BM, Schollin J. From alienation to familiarity: experiences of mothers and fathers of preterm infants. J Adv Nurs. 2003;43:120–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Meijssen DE, Wolf MJ, Koldewijn K, van Wassenaer AG, Kok JH, van Baar AL. Parenting stress in mothers after very preterm birth and the effect of the Infant Behavioural Assessment and Intervention Program. Child Care Health Dev. 2011;37:195–202.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Melnyk BM, Oswalt KL, Sidora-Arcoleo K. Validation and psychometric properties of the neonatal intensive care unit parental beliefs scale. Nurs Res. 2014;63:105–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Melnyk BM, Alpert-Gillis LJ. The COPE program: a strategy to improve outcomes of critically ill young children and their parents. Pediatr Nurs. 1998;24:521–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Benzies KM, Magill-Evans JE, Hayden KA, Ballantyne M. Key components of early intervention programs for preterm infants and their parents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2013;13 Suppl 1:S10.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  72. Pighini MJ, Goelman H, Buchanan M, Schonert-Reichl K, Brynelsen D. Learning from parents' stories about what works in early intervention. Int J Psychol. 2014;49:263–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Arockiasamy V, Holsti L, Albersheim S. Fathers' experiences in the neonatal intensive care unit: a search for control. Pediatrics. 2008;121:e215–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Phillips KA, Morrison KR, Anderson R, Aday LA. Understanding the context of healthcare utilization: Assessing environmental and provider-related variables in the behavioral model of utilization. Health Serv Res. 1998;33:571–96.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement