HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Related articles in AJPH Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Kliegman, R M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Kliegman, R M

Neonatal technology, perinatal survival, social consequences, and the perinatal paradox.

R M Kliegman

Department of Pediatrics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 53226, USA.

Exogenous surfactant therapy for premature infants with respiratory distress syndrome has had a significant impact on infant mortality and on some complications of prematurity. Yet the total number of low-birthweight infants has not declined, resulting in a high-risk population who would require surfactant therapy and long-term child care. Surviving low-birthweight infants (despite surfactant therapy) remain at risk for the consequences of premature birth, such as neurosensory impairment, cerebral palsy, and chronic lung disease. In addition, because of the close association between poverty and low birthweight, surviving premature infants are at increased risk for the new morbidities such as violence, homelessness, child abuse and neglect, and addictive drug use. A goal should be to reduce the risk of being born with a low birthweight, rather than having to treat the consequences of premature gestation. Despite the marvelous advances that permit us to treat respiratory distress syndrome, the continuing high low-birthweight rate places a significant strain on our health care system. The goal should be redirected to identifying large population-based efforts to reduce the number of low-birthweight infants.

Related articles in AJPH:

The perinatal paradox.

A Leviton
AJPH 1995 85: 906-907. [PDF]  

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. M. Cutler, A. B. Rosen, and S. Vijan The value of medical spending in the United States, 1960-2000. N. Engl. J. Med., August 31, 2006; 355(9): 920 - 927. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. A. Rogowski, D. O. Staiger, and J. D. Horbar Variations In The Quality Of Care For Very-Low-Birthweight Infants: Implications For Policy Health Aff., September 1, 2004; 23(5): 88 - 97. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Strathearn, P. H. Gray, and D. O. Wood Childhood Neglect and Cognitive Development in Extremely Low Birth Weight Infants: A Prospective Study Pediatrics, July 1, 2001; 108(1): 142 - 151. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. S. Kramer, R. Platt, H. Yang, K. S. Joseph, S. W. Wen, L. Morin, and R. H. Usher Secular Trends in Preterm Birth: A Hospital-Based Cohort Study JAMA, December 2, 1998; 280(21): 1849 - 1854. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. M. Marbella, V. K. Chetty, and P. M. Layde Neonatal Hospital Lengths of Stay, Readmissions, and Charges Pediatrics, January 1, 1998; 101(1): 32 - 36. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Esposito The Future for Children with Special Care Needs: The Impact of Health Care Professionals Home Health Care Management Practice, April 1, 1997; 9(3): v - v.