TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 12 °C Tuesday 21 May, 2013

Definition of ‘premature’ should be reconsidered – report

Researchers have found that full-term infants who spend longer in the womb do better at school later in life.

Image: Katie Collins/PA

EVEN FOR INFANTS born full-term, a little more time in the womb may matter.

The extra time results in more brain development, and a study suggests perhaps better scores on academic tests, too.

Full-term is generally between 37 weeks and 41 weeks; newborns born before 37 weeks are called premature and are known to face increased chances for health and developmental problems.

The children in the study were all full-term, and the vast majority did fine on third-grade math and reading tests. The differences were small, but the study found that more kids born at 37 or 38 weeks did poorly than did kids born even a week or two later.

The researchers and other experts said the results suggest that the definition of prematurity should be reconsidered.

The findings also raise questions about hastening childbirth by scheduling cesarean deliveries for convenience — because women are tired of being pregnant or doctors are busy — rather than for medical reasons, the researchers say.

Women should “at least proceed with caution before electing to have an earlier term birth,” said lead author Dr Kimberly Noble, an assistant pediatrics professor at Columbia University Medical Center.

Research

The study involved 128,000 New York City public school children and included a sizable number of kids from disadvantaged families. But the authors said similar results likely would be found in other children, too.

Of the children born at 37 weeks, 2.3 per cent had severely poor reading skills and 1.1 per cent had at least moderate problems in math. That compares to 1.8 per cent and 0.9 per cent for the children born at 41 weeks.

Children born at 38 weeks faced only slightly lower risks than those born at 37 weeks.

Compared with 41-weekers, children born at 37 weeks faced a 33 per cent increased chance of having severe reading difficulty in third grade, and a 19 per cent greater chance of having moderate problems in math.

“These outcomes are critical and predict future academic achievement,” said Naomi Breslau, a Michigan State University professor and sociologist. Her own research has linked lower IQs in 6-year-olds born weighing the same as the average birth weights at 37 and 38 weeks’ gestation, compared with those born heavier.

The study was published online today in Pediatrics.

The research “will cause quite a stir,” said Dr Judy Aschner, a pediatrics professor and neonatology director at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

“There are still a lot of babies who are being delivered more or less electively at 37 and 38 weeks, with people thinking, ‘This is no big deal — these babies are full-term.’ I think this is a big deal,” Aschner said. She was not involved in the study.

Aschner said no one is recommending trying to delay childbirth for women who go into labor at 37 weeks or 38 weeks.

“I don’t want to panic moms whose babies come at 37 weeks,” she said. “But those elective early deliveries really need to stop.”

Some hospitals including Vanderbilt require obstetricians planning elective C-sections to complete a checklist and if appropriate boxes aren’t checked, the operation can’t be performed, Aschner said.

In the study, 15 per cent of children were born in C-section operations but there was no information on how many of these were elective or medically necessary procedures. C-sections can cause birth complications that also increase chances for developmental delays. But the researchers took that into account, along with other risk factors including low birth weight, lack of prenatal care, smoking during pregnancy and neighbourhood poverty — all of which could contribute to academic difficulties. And they still found that birth at 37 weeks and 38 weeks was an additional risk.

Read next:

Comments (22 Comments)

  • My son wasn’t born until 42 weeks…..does that mean he’ll be a genius? ;)

    Reply
  • Children who stay in the womb for longer are *more likely* to do better cognitively than those who are born earlier. Correlation does not imply causation. Statistically there will always be some children who are born later who will still have a learning difficulty for whatever reason, genetics, mother who smokes etc. This is an important finding with implications for obstetrics.

    Reply
  • my little girl was born at 33 weeks, weighing 3 lbs, although she had health problems at the start i find at nearly 2 she is not behind developmently where her brother and sister where at her age (both full term babies).. think it depends on the child really.

    Reply
    • I was a similar size and born 7 weeks early, was walking by 1, was toilet trained early then most kids, had no learning problems in school and the stabilizers didn’t stay on the bike long. Only health problem was a hernia as a baby and that was one of those random things that could happen any child regardless of being premature or full term. I take these reports with a pinch of salt.

      Reply
    • similiar here jason walked at 12 months, and with holidays now hoping to potty train by 2nd birthday as were my other kids.. speech perfect if even better than her older siblings at 2. heart murmur and lots of routine checks because she was a “premmie”. she was very poorly when she was born.. but to look at her now, denifintly wouldnt be taking report too seriously

      Reply
    • Every child is unique and different and while there are two “positive” experiences from prematurity mentioned above and many children have no effects from a premature birth its not something that should happen without good reason as the “normal pregnancy term” has I am sure evolved for a very good reason. I would also point out that not everyone is so lucky so certainly this report should not be dismissed lightly.

      Reply
  • My daughter was born at 42 weeks, my son 38. He is a lot brighter than she is and he has suffered a lot of health problems. Think it depends on the child too.

    Reply
  • Yet another reason to allow a woman’s body do what it is designed to do and remove the event of childbirth from the control of doctors unless risk is evident.

    Reply
    • Removing doctors might be a bit extreme based on this Pamela, given that we have such an excellent survival rate for mothers and babies in ireland. I don’t think the number of elective sections here is anything like as high as it is in the US.

      Reply
    • Excluding Mount Carmel of course!!

      Reply
    • i dont know how anybody would opt to have a section.. granted mine was an emergancy and i was put to sleep, that feeling is something id never like to repeat. i know someone who has had 4 elective c sections.. doctors should refuse.

      Reply
    • me and my brother were both c sections. my mam (who was a doctor) elected to have c sections for a number of reasons, she had small hips and felt thete would be likely to be less chance of pelvic floor damage and she also wsnted to remove the chance of oxygen deprivation. there are advantages and disadvantages to both.

      Reply
  • What is math?

    Reply
  • Total and utter sensationalism! Did the study take into account economic factors or any other factors to this study?

    Reply
    • I haven’t read this report but going on how these sort of things are done I would say that they probably have taken other variables into account. Not to do so would render the whole thing a huge waste of time and money

      Reply
  • There is not even the most basic scientific analysis in this article. There is no distinction made whether the data shows correlation OR causation. There is no point publishing someone’s opinion on a study if the above distinction is not addressed.

    Reply
  • Pretty stupid my eldest was 2 weeks over due and she has a learning disability !

    Reply
  • As a parent of 2 prem children, 6yo at 30 weeks and 2 1/2yo at 27 weeks, I can only say that this is a load of nonsense. nBoth of our children have had no problems developmentally. They have had health issues as can be expected, but no learning problems. Infact, my wife was born at 27 weeks herself and it certainly hasn’t held her back. nAlso, why did they stop at 37 weeks? nThis seems like one of those research projects specifically designed to make sections seem evil. Both mine were emergency sections. nIf this was a real piece of research into development, they would have gone back further than 37 weeks. nn

    Reply
    • Danny, don’t take this report personally. Firstly the report was not even about emergency sections, which are totally different. And secondly if you look at the detail of the report above, it says that 2.3 % of children born at 37 weeks had difficulty with reading skills, against 1.8% born later. So 97.7% of the earlier born children did NOT have those problems. Your children are much more likely to be fine than not, the differences are absolutely miniscule.

      Reply
  • mrnobody 02/07/12 #

    Apparently the definition od definition needs to be changed also

    Reply

Add New Comment