Psychiatric Symptoms: Prevalence, Co-occurrence, and Functioning Among Extremely Low Gestational Age Newborns at Age 10 Years.
Yael Dvir, Jean A Frazier, Robert M Joseph and 6 others
PMID 31764608WHAT IT FOUND
About 30% of 10-year-olds born extremely preterm screened positive for at least one psychiatric disorder.
Co-occurrence was frequent, especially between internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Higher numbers of co-occurring disorders were linked to worse school, social, and physical functioning.
Key findings
01Approximately 30% of the extremely preterm cohort screened positive for at least one psychiatric disorder, with boys (34%) screening positive more often than girls (25%).
02Co-occurrence of psychiatric disorders was common; externalizing and internalizing disorders were the most likely pair to co-occur (8% of the sample), followed by externalizing disorders and autism spectrum disorder (3%).
03Functional impairment increased with the number of positive screens. Children with two or more disorders had significantly higher rates of grade repetition (27-34%), IEPs (80%), and need for school aides (16-23%) compared to those with no positive screens.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study used a parent-report screening tool (CSI-4) rather than direct clinical diagnosis, which may over- or under-estimate true prevalence. There was no contemporaneous control group of term-born children; comparisons were made against normative data that excluded children in special education, potentially biasing the comparison. The study design was observational, so it identifies associations but cannot prove that preterm birth causes these psychiatric outcomes. Data were collected at age 10, so the prevalence of psychiatric disorders may change during adolescence. Teacher reports were unavailable for many participants, limiting the ability to assess cross-setting consistency of symptoms.
Declared interests
The text does not explicitly state funding sources or conflicts of interest in the provided excerpts, but notes that the study was approved by institutional review boards.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the positive screens as definitive clinical diagnoses. The study used a parent-report screening tool (CSI-4) and compared it to normative data that excluded children in special education. The actual prevalence of diagnosed disorders may differ from the screening results.