Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Pediatrics
Published in: BMC Pediatrics 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Who is our cohort: recruitment, representativeness, baseline risk and retention in the “Watch Me Grow” study?

Authors: Susan Woolfenden, Valsamma Eapen, Emma Axelsson, Alexandra Hendry, Bin Jalaludin, Cheryl Dissanayake, Bronwyn Overs, Joseph Descallar, John Eastwood, Stewart Einfeld, Natalie Silove, Kate Short, Deborah Beasley, Rudi Črnčec, Elisabeth Murphy, Katrina Williams, the “Watch Me Grow” study group

Published in: BMC Pediatrics | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The “Watch Me Grow” (WMG) study examines the current developmental surveillance system in South West Sydney. This paper describes the establishment of the study birth cohort, including the recruitment processes, representativeness, follow-up and participants’ baseline risk for future developmental risk.

Methods

Newborn infants and their parents were recruited from two public hospital postnatal wards and through child health nurses during the years 2011–2013. Data was obtained through a detailed participant questionnaire and linked with the participant’s electronic medical record (EMR). Representativeness was determined by Chi-square analyses of the available clinical, psychosocial and sociodemographic EMR data, comparing the WMG participants to eligible non-participants. Reasons for non-participation were also elicited. Participant characteristics were examined in six, 12, and 18-month follow-ups.

Results

The number of infants recruited totalled 2,025, with 50 % of those approached agreeing to participate. Reasons for parents not participating included: lack of interest, being too busy, having plans to relocate, language barriers, participation in other research projects, and privacy concerns. The WMG cohort was broadly representative of the culturally diverse and socially disadvantaged local population from which it was sampled. Of the original 2025 participants enrolled at birth, participants with PEDS outcome data available at follow-up were: 792 (39 %) at six months, 649 (32 %) at 12 months, and 565 (28 %) at 18 months. Participants with greater psychosocial risk were less likely to have follow-up outcome data. Almost 40 % of infants in the baseline cohort were exposed to at least two risk factors known to be associated with developmental risk.

Conclusions

The WMG study birth cohort is a valuable resource for health services due to the inclusion of participants from vulnerable populations, despite there being challenges in being able to actively follow-up this population.
Literature
1.
Shonkoff JP. From neurons to neighborhoods: old and new challenges for developmental and behavioral pediatrics. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2003;24(1):70–6.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Fiscella K, Kitzman H. Disparities in Academic Achievement and Health: The Intersection of Child Education and Health Policy. Pediatrics. 2009;123(3):1073–80.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Goldfeld S, O’Connor M, Sayers M, Moore T, Oberklaid F. Prevalence and correlates of special health care needs in a population cohort of Australian children at school entry. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2012;33:319–27.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Oberklaid F, Baird G, Blair M, Melhuish E, Hall D. Children’s health and development: approaches to early identification and intervention. Arch Dis Child. 2013;98(12):1008–11.CrossRefPubMed
5.
AAP. American Academy of Pediatrics.Periodic Survey #53. Identification of Children <36 Months at Risk for Developmental Problems and Referral to Identification Programs. 2003.
6.
Glascoe F. Using parents’ concerns to detect and address developmental and behavioral problems. J Soc Pediatr Nurs. 1999;4(1):24–35.CrossRefPubMed
7.
AAP. Identifying infants and young children with developmental disorders in the medical home: an algorithm for developmental surveillance and screening. Pediatrics. 2006;118(1):405–20.CrossRef
8.
NH&MRC. Child Health Screening and Surveillance: A Critical Review of the Literature. Canberra: Centre for Community Child Health Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne for the National Health and Medical Research Council; 2002.
9.
Chung P, Lee T, Morrison J, Schuster M. Preventive care for children in the United States: quality and barriers. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:491–515.CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Woolfenden S, Kate S, Blackmore R, Pennock R, Moore M. How do Primary Health Care Practitioners Identify and Manage Communication Impairments in Preschool Children? Aust J Prim Health. 2015;21(2):176–81.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Glascoe F. Collaborating with Parents: Using Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) to Detect and Address Developmental and Behavioral Problems. 2nd Edition. Nolensville, TN: PEDSTest.com, LLC. 2013. (www.​pedstest.​com). Accessed Sept 2013. 2013.
13.
Woolfenden S, Eapen V, Williams K, Hayen A, Spencer N, Kemp L. A systematic review of the prevalence of parental concerns measured by the Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) indicating developmental risk. BMC pediatrics. 2014;14:231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Spencer N, Coe C. Parent-reported infant health and illness in a whole year birth cohort. Child Care Health Dev. 2000;26(6):489–500.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Jacobsen TN, Nohr EA, Frydenberg M. Selection by socioeconomic factors into the Danish National Birth Cohort. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:349–55.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Woolfenden S, Eapen V, Williams K, Hayen A, Spencer N, Kemp L. A systematic review of the prevalence of parental concerns measured by the Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) indicating developmental risk. BMC Pediatr. 2014;14:231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Stevens G. Gradients in the health status and developmental risks of young children: the combined influences of multiple social risk factors. Matern Child Health J. 2006;10(2):187–99.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Bronfenbrenner U. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1979.
19.
20.
21.
Nicholson J, Sanson A. A new longitudinal study of the health and wellbeing of Australian children: How will it help? Med J Aust. 2003;178:282–4.PubMed
22.
Comino E, Craig P, Harris E, McDermott D, Harris M, Henry R, Jackson-Pulver L, Kemp L, Knight J. The Gudaga Study: establishing an Aboriginal birth cohort in an urban community. Aust NZ J Public Health. 2010;34 Suppl 1:S9–S17.CrossRef
23.
McDonald J, Comino E, Knight J, Webster V. Developmental progress in urban Aboriginal infants: A cohort study. J Paediatr Child Health. 2012;48(2):114–21.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
26.
Cox J, Holden J, Sagovsky R. Detection of postnatal depression: development of the 10-item Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1987;150:782–6.CrossRefPubMed
27.
StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 13. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2013.
28.
29.
30.
Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R. Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(12):1143–56.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Mihrshahi S, Vukasin N, Forbes S, Wainwright C, Krause W, Ampon R, Mellis C, Marks G, Peat J. Are you busy for the next 5 years? Recruitment in the Childhood Asthma Prevention Study (CAPS). Respirology. 2002;7(2):147–51.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Yancey A, Ortega A, Kumanyika S. Effective recruitment and retention of minority research participants. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:1–28.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Galea S, Tracy M. Participation rates in epidemiologic studies. Ann Epidemiol. 2007;17(9):643–53.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Winter P, Luddy S. Engaging Families in the Early Childhood Development Story: A National Project conducted on behalf of the Ministerial Council for Education, Early Childhood Development and Youth Affairs. Research findings from a survey of parents of children from birth to age 8. Melbourne. 2010.
35.
Alexander K, Brijnath B, Mazza D. Parents’ decision making and access to preventive healthcare for young children: applying Andersen’s Model. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1256–69.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Hertzman C, Boyce T. How experience gets under the skin to create gradients in developmental health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:329–47. 323p following 347.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Bronfenbrenner U, Ceci SJ. Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: a bioecological model. Psychol Rev. 1994;101(4):568–86.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Halfon N, Larson K, Lu M, Tullis E, Russ S. Lifecourse health development: past, present and future. Matern Child Health J. 2014;18(2):344–65.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Horn I, Cora-Bramble D, Cheng T, Jenkins R, Pachter L, Joseph J. Starting early: a life-course perspective on child health disparities--research recommendations. Pediatrics. 2009;124 Suppl 3:S257–61.PubMed
40.
Nicholson J, Carroll J, Brodie A, Vimpani G. Child and Youth Health Inequalities in Australia: The status of Australian research 2003. Paper prepared for the Health Inequalities Research Collaboration. Children, Youth and Families Network. 2004.
41.
AIHW. National outcome measures for early childhood development: Development of an indicator-based reporting framework. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Canberra. Cat. no. PHE 134 2011.
42.
Garcia Coll C. Developmental outcome of minority infants: A process-oriented look into our beginnings. Child Dev. 1990;61(2):270–89.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Woolfenden S, Posada N, Krchnakova R, Crawford J, Gilbert J, Jursik B, Sarkozy V, Perkins D, Kemp L. Equitable access to developmental surveillance and early intervention - understanding the barriers for children from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds. Health Expect. 2014. doi:10.​1111/​hex12318.PubMed
44.
Knudsen AK, Hotopf M, Skogen JC, Øverland S, Mykletun A. The Health Status of Nonparticipants in a Population-based Health Study;The Hordaland Health Study. Am J Epidemiol. 2010;172(11):1306–14.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Glascoe FP. The Value of ‘Parents’ Evaluations of Developmental Status’ in Detecting and Addressing Children’s Developmental and Behavioral Problems. Assess Eff Interv. 1998;23(4):185–203.
46.
Metadata
Title
Who is our cohort: recruitment, representativeness, baseline risk and retention in the “Watch Me Grow” study?
Authors
Susan Woolfenden
Valsamma Eapen
Emma Axelsson
Alexandra Hendry
Bin Jalaludin
Cheryl Dissanayake
Bronwyn Overs
Joseph Descallar
John Eastwood
Stewart Einfeld
Natalie Silove
Kate Short
Deborah Beasley
Rudi Črnčec
Elisabeth Murphy
Katrina Williams
the “Watch Me Grow” study group
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Pediatrics / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2431
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-016-0582-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Pediatrics 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Internet use of parents before attending a general pediatric outpatient clinic: does it change their information level and assessment of acute diseases?

Study protocol

The Swiss Preschoolers’ health study (SPLASHY): objectives and design of a prospective multi-site cohort study assessing psychological and physiological health in young children

Research article

Interventions to improve gross motor performance in children with neurodevelopmental disorders: a meta-analysis

Research article

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (Nafld) in obese children- effect of refined carbohydrates in diet

Research article

How do parents experience support after the death of their child?

Research article

Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of hospital-based home care compared to hospital-based care for children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes; a randomised controlled trial; results after two years’ follow-up