IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i9p3258-d354895.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Early Motor Trajectories Predict Motor but not Cognitive Function in Preterm- and Term-Born Adults without Pre-existing Neurological Conditions

Author

Listed:
  • Nicole Baumann

    (Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK)

  • James Tresilian

    (Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK)

  • Peter Bartmann

    (Department of Neonatology, University Hospital Bonn, 53113 Bonn, Germany)

  • Dieter Wolke

    (Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
    Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7HL, UK)

Abstract

Very preterm (VP; <32 weeks gestation) and/or very low birth weight (VLBW; <1500 g) birth has been associated with an increased risk of adverse motor and cognitive outcomes that may persist into adulthood. The aim of this study was to determine whether motor development in the first five years of life is associated with motor and cognitive outcomes in adulthood. A prospective observational study in Germany followed 260 VP/VLBW and 229 term-born individuals from birth into adulthood. Early motor trajectories (i.e., high and low degree of motor difficulties) were determined from neurological examinations from birth to 56 months. Adult motor and cognitive outcomes were determined from information from multiple instruments and IQ tests, respectively. Associations of VP/VLBW birth and early motor difficulties on adult outcomes were assessed using regression analyses. VP/VLBW individuals had an increased risk for early motor difficulties (Relative Risk: 11.77, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.28, 32.35). Early motor difficulties were associated with poorer motor competence in adulthood ( β = 0.22, p < 0.001), independent of VP/VLBW birth. Adult IQ was predicted by VP/VLBW ( β = −0.12, p < 0.05) and child IQ ( β = 0.51, p < 0.001), while early motor difficulties ceased to be associated with adult IQ once participants with a neurological impairment were excluded ( β = 0.02, p > 0.05). Motor problems in childhood were homotypically associated with poorer motor competence in adulthood. Similarly, early cognitive problems were homotypically associated with adult cognitive outcomes. Thus, both motor and cognitive function should be assessed in routine follow-up during childhood.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicole Baumann & James Tresilian & Peter Bartmann & Dieter Wolke, 2020. "Early Motor Trajectories Predict Motor but not Cognitive Function in Preterm- and Term-Born Adults without Pre-existing Neurological Conditions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-14, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:9:p:3258-:d:354895
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/3258/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/9/3258/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. W Furlong & D Feeny & G Torrance & C Goldsmith & S DePauw & Z Zhu & M Denton & M Boyle, 1998. "Multiplicative Multi-Attribute Utility Function for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3) System: A Technical Report," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1998-11, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Annalisa Guarini & Miguel Pérez Pereira & Anneloes van Baar & Alessandra Sansavini, 2021. "Special Issue: Preterm Birth: Research, Intervention and Developmental Outcomes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-4, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. D. Stratmann‐Schoene & T. Kuehn & R. Kreienberg & R. Leidl, 2006. "A preference‐based index for the SF‐12," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(6), pages 553-564, June.
    2. Mihir Gandhi & Marcus Ang & Kelvin Teo & Chee Wai Wong & Yvonne Chung-Hsi Wei & Rachel Lee-Yin Tan & Mathieu F. Janssen & Nan Luo, 2020. "A vision ‘bolt-on’ increases the responsiveness of EQ-5D: preliminary evidence from a study of cataract surgery," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(4), pages 501-511, June.
    3. Stengos, Thanasis & Thompson, Brennan S., 2012. "Testing for bivariate stochastic dominance using inequality restrictions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 60-62.
    4. Emmanuelle Piérard, 2016. "The effect of health care expenditures on self-rated health status and the Health Utility Index: Evidence from Canada," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Joan Costa-Font & Frank A. Cowell, 2022. "The measurement of health inequalities: does status matter?," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 20(2), pages 299-325, June.
    6. Barry Dewitt & Alexander Davis & Baruch Fischhoff & Janel Hanmer, 2017. "An Approach to Reconciling Competing Ethical Principles in Aggregating Heterogeneous Health Preferences," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(6), pages 647-656, August.
    7. Jorgen Lauridsen & Terkel Christiansen & Unto Häkkinen, 2004. "Measuring inequality in self‐reported health—discussion of a recently suggested approach using Finnish data," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(7), pages 725-732, July.
    8. Nan Luo & Qinan Wang & David Feeny & Geraldine Chen & Shu-Chuen Li & Julian Thumboo, 2007. "Measuring Health Preferences for Health Utilities Index Mark 3 Health States: A Study of Feasibility and Preference Differences among Ethnic Groups in Singapore," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(1), pages 61-70, January.
    9. Bleichrodt, Han & Herrero, Carmen & Pinto, Jose Luis, 2002. "A proposal to solve the comparability problem in cost-utility analysis," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 397-403, May.
    10. Miller, Ray & Chin, Sayorn & Sedai, Ashish Kumar, 2022. "The welfare cost of late-life depression," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 15-36.
    11. Louis S. Matza & Glenn Phillips & Barry Dewitt & Katie D. Stewart & David Cella & David Feeny & Janel Hanmer & Deborah M. Miller & Dennis A. Revicki, 2020. "A Scoring Algorithm for Deriving Utility Values from the Neuro-QoL for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(7), pages 897-911, October.
    12. Peter J. Neumann & Eileen A. Sandberg & Sally S. Araki & Karen M. Kuntz & David Feeny & Milton C. Weinstein, 2000. "A Comparison of HU12 and HU13 Utility Scores in Alzheimer's Disease," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 20(4), pages 413-422, October.
    13. Dionne, Georges & Lebeau, Martin, 2010. "Le calcul de la valeur statistique d’une vie humaine," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 86(4), pages 487-530, décembre.
    14. Piérard, Emmanuelle, 2014. "The effect of physician supply on health status: Canadian evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 56-65.
    15. Charles M. Harvey & Lars Peter Østerdal, 2010. "Cardinal Scales for Health Evaluation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 256-281, September.
    16. Wolfgang C. Winkelmayer & Joshua S. Benner & Robert J. Glynn & Sebastian Schneeweiss & Philip S. Wang & M. Alan Brookhart & Raisa Levin & Joseph D. Jackson & Jerry Avorn, 2006. "Assessing Health State Utilities in Elderly Patients at Cardiovascular Risk," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 26(3), pages 247-254, May.
    17. Qinan Wang & William Furlong & David Feeny & George Torrance & Ronald Barr, 2002. "How Robust Is the Health Utilities Index Mark 2 Utility Function?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 22(4), pages 350-358, August.
    18. Barry Dewitt & Baruch Fischhoff & Alexander L. Davis & Stephen B. Broomell & Mark S. Roberts & Janel Hanmer, 2019. "Exclusion Criteria as Measurements II: Effects on Utility Functions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 39(6), pages 704-716, August.
    19. Carmen Herrero Blanco & Juan D. Moreno Ternero, 2002. "Economic Evaluation Of Newborn Hearing Screening Procedures," Working Papers. Serie AD 2002-06, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    20. Monali S Malvankar-Mehta & Yufeng Nancy Chen & Sangita Patel & Angela Pui-Kei Leung & Man Mohan Merchea & William G Hodge, 2015. "Immediate versus Delayed Sequential Bilateral Cataract Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:9:p:3258-:d:354895. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.