Loss to Follow-up and Developmental Delay in the Neonatal High-Risk Infant Follow-up Clinic.

IF 1.2 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
American journal of perinatology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-08 DOI:10.1055/a-2551-4622
Lilia P Christner, Emman Dabaja, Mohammad Attar
{"title":"Loss to Follow-up and Developmental Delay in the Neonatal High-Risk Infant Follow-up Clinic.","authors":"Lilia P Christner, Emman Dabaja, Mohammad Attar","doi":"10.1055/a-2551-4622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Neonatal follow-up (NFU) clinics provide developmental assessments for infants at high risk for developmental delays. Disparities in NFU attendance and loss to follow-up (LTF) are well documented, but it is not known whether patients who are LTF have different developmental outcomes. The population of patients LTF from the NFU clinic is assumed to be homogenous, but we hypothesize there is a subpopulation of patients LTF who are receiving developmental care elsewhere. Our objective was to compare the baseline characteristics and developmental outcomes of infants who completed follow-up, infants who were LTF but seen by others in the community, and infants who were LTF but not seen by others (true LTF).Retrospective cohort study at a regional specialty center, including 262 patients referred to the NFU clinic who were born between 2014 and 2017, with a 24-month total follow-up period, such that assessment of all follow-up outcomes (NFU clinic attendance outcome, and clinician assessed developmental delay) was complete prior to March 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the odds of developmental delay, true LTF, and referral to developmental services at initial hospital discharge.Of 262 patients, 86 (33%) were LTF from the NFU clinic. Of these, 55 (64%) had developmental assessments by other providers. Of those LTFs from NFU but seen by other providers, the prevalence of clinician-assessed developmental delay at 24 months was 67%, compared with 45% of those who completed the NFU clinic (<i>p</i> < 0.001). Social risk factors (younger mothers, late or no prenatal care, maternal smoking, or referral for a social reason) were associated with higher odds of true LTF, but no different odds of referral to developmental services at hospital discharge.A majority of patients LTF from the NFU clinic had developmental assessments by others (64%). Social risk factors were associated with true LTF and missed developmental assessments. · Sixty-four percent of patients with LTF had developmental assessments by other providers.. · Social risk factors were associated with higher odds of true LTF.. · Infants with social risk factors were not referred to developmental services early..</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":" ","pages":"1908-1917"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2551-4622","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Neonatal follow-up (NFU) clinics provide developmental assessments for infants at high risk for developmental delays. Disparities in NFU attendance and loss to follow-up (LTF) are well documented, but it is not known whether patients who are LTF have different developmental outcomes. The population of patients LTF from the NFU clinic is assumed to be homogenous, but we hypothesize there is a subpopulation of patients LTF who are receiving developmental care elsewhere. Our objective was to compare the baseline characteristics and developmental outcomes of infants who completed follow-up, infants who were LTF but seen by others in the community, and infants who were LTF but not seen by others (true LTF).Retrospective cohort study at a regional specialty center, including 262 patients referred to the NFU clinic who were born between 2014 and 2017, with a 24-month total follow-up period, such that assessment of all follow-up outcomes (NFU clinic attendance outcome, and clinician assessed developmental delay) was complete prior to March 2020. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the odds of developmental delay, true LTF, and referral to developmental services at initial hospital discharge.Of 262 patients, 86 (33%) were LTF from the NFU clinic. Of these, 55 (64%) had developmental assessments by other providers. Of those LTFs from NFU but seen by other providers, the prevalence of clinician-assessed developmental delay at 24 months was 67%, compared with 45% of those who completed the NFU clinic (p < 0.001). Social risk factors (younger mothers, late or no prenatal care, maternal smoking, or referral for a social reason) were associated with higher odds of true LTF, but no different odds of referral to developmental services at hospital discharge.A majority of patients LTF from the NFU clinic had developmental assessments by others (64%). Social risk factors were associated with true LTF and missed developmental assessments. · Sixty-four percent of patients with LTF had developmental assessments by other providers.. · Social risk factors were associated with higher odds of true LTF.. · Infants with social risk factors were not referred to developmental services early..

新生儿高危婴儿随访诊所的随访缺失和发育迟缓。
新生儿随访(NFU)诊所为发育迟缓的高风险婴儿提供发育评估。NFU出席率和随访缺失(LTF)的差异有很好的记录,但不知道LTF患者是否有不同的发育结局。来自NFU诊所的LTF患者群体被认为是同质的,但我们假设有一部分LTF患者在其他地方接受发育治疗。我们的目的是比较完成随访的婴儿、LTF但被社区其他人看到的婴儿和LTF但没有被其他人看到的婴儿(真正的LTF)的基线特征和发育结果。在某区域专科中心进行回顾性队列研究,纳入262例2014年至2017年出生的NFU门诊患者,总随访期为24个月,以便在2020年3月之前完成所有随访结果的评估(NFU门诊出勤结果和临床医生评估的发育迟缓)。采用多变量logistic回归对发育迟缓、真实LTF和初次出院时转到发展服务机构的几率进行建模。262例患者中,86例(33%)为来自NFU诊所的LTF。其中55例(64%)接受了其他提供者的发展评估。在那些从NFU就诊但由其他提供者就诊的ltf中,临床评估的24个月发育迟缓患病率为67%,而完成NFU诊所的ltf患病率为45%
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American journal of perinatology
American journal of perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
302
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Perinatology is an international, peer-reviewed, and indexed journal publishing 14 issues a year dealing with original research and topical reviews. It is the definitive forum for specialists in obstetrics, neonatology, perinatology, and maternal/fetal medicine, with emphasis on bridging the different fields. The focus is primarily on clinical and translational research, clinical and technical advances in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment as well as evidence-based reviews. Topics of interest include epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of maternal, fetal, and neonatal diseases. Manuscripts on new technology, NICU set-ups, and nursing topics are published to provide a broad survey of important issues in this field. All articles undergo rigorous peer review, with web-based submission, expedited turn-around, and availability of electronic publication. The American Journal of Perinatology is accompanied by AJP Reports - an Open Access journal for case reports in neonatology and maternal/fetal medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信