Evaluation of the use of a parent questionnaire to provide later health status data: the PANDA study

Parent screening questionnaires to detect cognitive and language delay at 2 years in high-risk infants: an analysis from the Victorian Infant Collaborative Study 2016-2017 cohort

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accuracy of two developmental screening questionnaires to detect cognitive or language delay, defined using the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development-Third Edition (Bayley-III), in children born extremely preterm (EP: <28 weeks' gestation) or extremely low birth weight (ELBW: <1000 g).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

State of Victoria, Australia.

PATIENTS

211 infants born EP/ELBW assessed at 2 years' corrected age (mean 2.2, SD 0.2).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cognitive and language delay (<-1 SD) on the Bayley-III. The screening questionnaires were the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised (PARCA-R) and the Ages & Stages Questionnaires Third Edition (ASQ-3).

RESULTS

The PARCA-R performed better than the ASQ-3, but neither questionnaire had substantial agreement with the Bayley-III to detect cognitive delay; kappa (95% CI): PARCA-R 0.43 (0.23, 0.63); ASQ-3 0.15 (-0.05, 0.35); sensitivity (95% CI): PARCA-R 70% (53%, 84%) ASQ-3 62% (47%, 76%); specificity (95% CI): PARCA-R 73% (60%, 84%) ASQ-3 53% (38%, 68%). When both tools were used in combination (below cut-off on at least one assessment), sensitivity increased to 78% (60%, 91%) but specificity fell to 45% (29%, 62%). Similar trends were noted for language delay on the Bayley-III, although kappa values were better than for cognitive delay.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither screening questionnaire identified cognitive delay well, but both were better at identifying language delay. The PARCA-R detects delay on the Bayley-III more accurately than the ASQ-3. Sensitivity for detecting delay is greatest when the PARCA-R and ASQ-3 were used in combination, but resulted in lower specificity.

Methods for Constructing Normalised Reference Scores: An Application for Assessing Child Development at 24 Months of Age

The use of the lambda-mu-sigma (LMS) method for estimating centiles and producing reference ranges has received much interest in clinical practice, especially for assessing growth in childhood. However, this method may not be directly applicable where measures are based on a score calculated from question response categories that is bounded within finite intervals, for example, in psychometrics. In such cases, the main assumption of normality of the conditional distribution of the transformed response measurement is violated due to the presence of ceiling (and floor) effects, leading to biased fitted centiles when derived using the common LMS method. This paper describes the methodology for constructing reference intervals when the response variable is bounded and explores different distribution families for the centile estimation, using a score derived from a parent-completed assessment of cognitive and language development in 24 month-old children. Results indicated that the z-scores, and thus the extracted centiles, improved when kurtosis was also modeled and that the ceiling effect was addressed with the use of the inflated binomial distribution. Therefore, the selection of the appropriate distribution when constructing centile curves is crucial.

Two speeds of increasing milk feeds for very preterm or very low-birthweight infants: the SIFT RCT

BACKGROUND

Observational data suggest that slowly advancing enteral feeds in preterm infants may reduce necrotising enterocolitis but increase late-onset sepsis. The Speed of Increasing milk Feeds Trial (SIFT) compared two rates of feed advancement.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if faster (30 ml/kg/day) or slower (18 ml/kg/day) daily feed increments improve survival without moderate or severe disability and other morbidities in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants.

DESIGN

This was a multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was via a web-hosted minimisation algorithm. It was not possible to safely and completely blind caregivers and parents.

SETTING

The setting was 55 UK neonatal units, from May 2013 to June 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

The participants were infants born at < 32 weeks' gestation or a weight of < 1500 g, who were receiving < 30 ml/kg/day of milk at trial enrolment.

INTERVENTIONS

When clinicians were ready to start advancing feed volumes, the infant was randomised to receive daily feed increments of either 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In total, 1400 infants were allocated to fast feeds and 1404 infants were allocated to slow feeds.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months of age, corrected for gestational age. The secondary outcomes were mortality; moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months corrected for gestational age; death before discharge home; microbiologically confirmed or clinically suspected late-onset sepsis; necrotising enterocolitis (Bell's stage 2 or 3); time taken to reach full milk feeds (tolerating 150 ml/kg/day for 3 consecutive days); growth from birth to discharge; duration of parenteral feeding; time in intensive care; duration of hospital stay; diagnosis of cerebral palsy by a doctor or other health professional; and individual components of the definition of moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability.

RESULTS

The results showed that survival without moderate or severe neurodevelopmental disability at 24 months occurred in 802 out of 1224 (65.5%) infants allocated to faster increments and 848 out of 1246 (68.1%) infants allocated to slower increments (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 1.01). There was no significant difference between groups in the risk of the individual components of the primary outcome or in the important hospital outcomes: late-onset sepsis (adjusted risk ratio 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.07) or necrotising enterocolitis (adjusted risk ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16). Cost-consequence analysis showed that the faster feed increment rate was less costly but also less effective than the slower rate in terms of achieving the primary outcome, so was therefore found to not be cost-effective. Four unexpected serious adverse events were reported, two in each group. None was assessed as being causally related to the intervention.

LIMITATIONS

The study could not be blinded, so care may have been affected by knowledge of allocation. Although well powered for comparisons of all infants, subgroup comparisons were underpowered.

CONCLUSIONS

No clear advantage was identified for the important outcomes in very preterm or very low-birthweight infants when milk feeds were advanced in daily volume increments of 30 ml/kg/day or 18 ml/kg/day. In terms of future work, the interaction of different milk types with increments merits further examination, as may different increments in infants at the extremes of gestation or birthweight.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN76463425.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Standardisation of the Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised (PARCA-R): a norm-referenced assessment of cognitive and language development at age 2 years

BACKGROUND

The Parent Report of Children's Abilities-Revised (PARCA-R) can be used to identify preterm born children at risk for developmental delay at age 24 months. However, standardised scores for assessing all children in the general population and quantifying development relative to the norm are unavailable, thus limiting the use of the questionnaire. We aimed to develop scores that are standardised by age and sex for the PARCA-R to assess children's cognitive and language development at age 24-27 months.

METHODS

Anonymised data from PARCA-R questionnaires that were completed by parents of 2-year-old children in three previous studies were obtained to form a standardisation sample that was representative of the UK general population. Anonymised data were obtained from three further studies to assess the external validity and clinical validity of the standardised scores. We used the lambda-mu-sigma (lambda for skewness, mu for median, sigma for the coefficient of variation) method to develop scores that are standardised by age and sex for three scales (non-verbal cognitive development, language development, and total parent report composite [PRC]) for children in four 1-month age bands, spanning age 23·5-27·5 months.

FINDINGS

We included 6402 children (mean age 25 months and 1 day [range 23 months and 16 days to 27 months and 15 days]) in the standardisation sample and 709 (mean age 24 months and 19 days [23 months and 16 days to 27 months and 15 days]) to test the external validity and 1456 (mean age 24 months and 8·5 days [23 months and 16 days to 27 months and 15 days]) to test the clinical validity of the standardised scores. For all PARCA-R scales, mean standardised scores approximated 100 (SD 15) in both sexes and all age groups. These scores were independent of socioeconomic status. Standardised scores were close to 100 (15) in the external validation sample, showing the validity of the scores. Standardised scores for the total PRC scale for children born very preterm (<32 weeks' gestation) were 0·47 SD lower on average than the normative mean, and for children with neonatal sepsis were 0·73 SD lower on average than the normative mean. These scores were equivalent to a standardised score of 93 (95% CI 91-94) for children born very preterm and 89 (88-91) for children with neonatal sepsis, thus showing clinical validity.

INTERPRETATION

The PARCA-R provides a norm-referenced, standardised assessment of cognitive and language development at 24-27 months of age. The questionnaire is available non-commercially in English with translations available in 14 other languages, thus providing clinicians and researchers with a cost-effective tool for assessing development and identifying children with delay.

FUNDING

Action Medical Research (Ref: GN2580).

Validity of neurodevelopmental outcomes of children born very preterm assessed during routine clinical follow-up in England

OBJECTIVE

To determine the validity of assessing and recording the neurodevelopmental outcome of very preterm infants during routine clinical follow-up in England.

DESIGN

Children born <30 weeks gestation, attending routine clinical follow-up at post-term ages 20-28 months, were recruited. Data on neurodevelopmental outcomes were recorded by the reviewing clinician in a standardised format in the child's electronic patient record, based on a set of key questions designed to be used without formal training or developmental testing. Using a predefined algorithm, each participant was classified as having 'no', 'mild/moderate' or 'severe' impairment in cognitive, communication and motor domains. All participants also received a research assessment by a single assessor using the Bayley Scales of Infant Development, third edition (Bayley-III). The sensitivity and specificity of routine data in capturing impairment (any Bayley-III score <85) or severe impairment (any Bayley-III score <70) was calculated.

RESULTS

190 children participated. The validity of routine assessments in identifying children with no impairment and no severe impairment was high across all domains (specificities 83.9%-100.0% and 96.6%-100.0%, respectively). However, identification of impairments, particularly in the cognitive (sensitivity 69.7% (55.1%-84.3%)) and communication (sensitivity (53.2% (42.0%-64.5%)) domains, was poor.

CONCLUSIONS

Neurodevelopmental status determined during routine clinical assessment lacks adequate sensitivity in cognitive and communication domains. It is uncertain whether this reflects the assessment or/and the recording of findings. As early intervention may improve education and social outcomes, this is an important area for healthcare quality improvement research.