Search

To examine the validity of the Motor Functional Development Scale for Young Children (DF-mot) to predict motor developmental delays in preterm infants. This retrospective cohort study includes 67 preterm infants who were assessed at 3–5 months by the DF-mot and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS); and at 22–25 months by the Bayley Scales of Infant-Toddler Development (Bayley-III). The properties of the DF-mot and the AIMS were examined based on their ability to predict motor delays on the Bayley-III. The DF-mot gross motor subscale −2 SD and the AIMS 10th centile showed best balance between sensitivity and specificity (respectively Se = 57.1%, Sp = 71.7% and Se = 50%, Sp = 73.5%). Overall, the DF-mot fine motor subscale fails to predict motor delays. The DF-mot shows a lack of sensitivity and of positive predictive value to accurately predict motor outcome at 2 years in preterm infants. CA, Corrected age; AIMS, Alberta Infant Motor Scale; DF-mot/PML, Motor Functional Development Scale for Young Children postural motor locomotor; DF-mot/EHGC, Motor Functional Development Scale for Young Children eye-hand grip coordination; Bayley-III/GM, Gross motor subscale of the Bayley Scales of Infant-Toddler Development Third Edition; Bayley-III/FM, Fine motor subscale of the Bayley Scales of Infant-Toddler Development Third Edition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prematurity remains a leading cause of motor developmental delays. The Alberta Infant Motor Scales (AIMS) is a useful tool to easily assess motor development. However, during the last decade, cross‐cultural differences have been identified regarding the original AIMS norms. Therefore, the aim of this study is twofold: confirm the validity of the AIMS in a preterm population and compare the new Dutch AIMS norms to the original Canadian ones in our Belgian population. Method: Ninety‐six preterm infants were assessed simultaneously on the AIMS and on the Bayley Scales of Infant‐Toddler Development (Bayley‐III) at age 9–14 months. Concurrent validity was evaluated by correlation analysis. Among these, 89 were assessed on the AIMS at age 3–6 months. Clinimetric properties of both AIMS norms were calculated to compare their ability to detect a motor delay on the Bayley‐III at age 9–14 months. Result: Pearson's coefficient showed an excellent level of correlation between the two scales (r = 0.91). At age 3–6 months, only the 10th Canadian centile showed acceptable properties to predict a significant motor delay. At age 9–14 months, the 5th centile of both norms showed good properties to diagnose a significant motor delay, while only the Canadian norms seems to be sensitive enough to diagnose a mild motor delay. Conclusion: The new Dutch norms seem to be less sensitive but more specific than the Canadian ones and therefore require adapted cut‐offs to diagnose motor developmental delays in a preterm population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Very preterm birth (24 to < 32 week's gestation) is a major public health issue due to its prevalence, the clinical and ethical questions it raises and the associated costs. It raises two major clinical and ethical dilemma: (i) during the perinatal period, whether or not to actively manage a baby born very prematurely and (ii) during the postnatal period, whether or not to continue a curative treatment plan initiated at birth. The Wallonia-Brussels Federation in Belgium counts 11 neonatal intensive care units.Methods: An inventory of key practices was compiled on the basis of an online questionnaire that was sent to the 65 neonatologists working in these units. The questionnaire investigated care-related decisions and practices during the antenatal, perinatal and postnatal periods, as well as personal opinions on the possibility of standardising and/or legislating for end-of-life decisions and practices. The participation rate was 89% (n = 58).Results: The results show a high level of homogeneity pointing to overall agreement on the main principles governing curative practice and the gestational age that can be actively managed given the current state of knowledge. There was, however, greater diversity regarding principles governing the transition to end-of-life care, as well as opinions about the need for a common protocol or law to govern such practices.Conclusion: Our results reflect the uncertainty inherent in the complex and diverse situations that are encountered in this extreme area of clinical practice, and call for qualitative research and expert debates to further document and make recommendations for best practices regarding several "gray zones" of end-of-life care in neonatology, so that high quality palliative care may be granted to all neonates concerned with end-of-life decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]