J Nurs Acad Soc.  1985 Dec;15(3):62-73.

A Comparative Study on the Growth alpha Developmental Status of Premature and Full Term Infants During the First 3Years

• Park YA

Abstract

The problems of growth & development due to maladjustment are gradually increasing while need or the treatment of children's diseases is decreasing. The level of developmental deficiency or delay correlates with neonatal birth weight and also with gestational age, i.e. degrees of prematurity. Therefore, developmental defects and potential risk factors are more Common in premature infants than in full term infants. The purpose of this study is to define the difference in the growth & developmental status between premature and full term infants, and to define the relation between the developmental status and the physical growth during the first 3 years' Data were collected from January 10, 1985 to April 6, 1985 at 3 hospitals including St. Mary's Hospital, and through home visiting. The subjects of this study consisted of 70 premature infants (G.A.<37wks. & B.W.<2.5kg) and 94 full term infants (G.A. > or =37 wks. & B.W.> or =2.5kg). The study method used was a questionnaire, anthropometric assessment and DDST for normative data of growth & development. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, chi-square test and t-test. The results of the study were as follows: Hypothesis: 1 : That the prematures will differ from the full term infants in the physical growth status during the first 3 years was partially supported (P<0.02) ; The prematures reached up the full term infants in the physical growth status in the first 6 months. And, the first hypothesis was supported (P<0,01) ; There are more cases which is below 'the Korean children's physical growth standards' in prematures than in full term infants. Hypothesis 2 : That the prematures will differ from the full term infants in the developmental status during the first 3 years was supported (P<0.001) ; 'Normal' developmental status due to DDST was less in prematures than in full term infants. And, the second hypothesis was partially supported (P<0.02) : The developmental status of the prematures was different from that of the full term infants within the first 3 months by analysis of passed items in DDST. Hypothesis 3: That the prematures' developmental status will relate to their physical growth during the first 3 years was supported (P<0.001) ; If the prematures' developmental status is in delayed status, then, their physical growth status is also in delayed status. This study shows that the prematures differed significantly from the full term infants in the growth & developmental status during their infancy. This means that the nurse can foster the growth & development of the prematures by supportive care during their infancy. Further longitudinal study is needed to verify these findings for the environmental factors.

MeSH Terms

Birth Weight
Gestational Age
House Calls
Humans
Infant*
Infant, Newborn
Infant, Premature
Longitudinal Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires
Risk Factors

Reference

1). 박병숙;한국간호교육의당면문제: 이화여자대학간호대학논문집, 1: 36, 1976.이영북;간호사, 수문사, 1981.

2). 한f 복: 간호원의성격특성에관한연구, 카를릭대학의학부논문집, 19: 368~369: 1970L.

3). 전산초;전인간호의임상학적분석과실행에관한연구, 간호학회지'4 (1): 1–21, 1974.

4). Effie J. Taylor; What is the nature of nursing, AJN, 347: 476: 1943.

5). 박정호;종합병원간호인력수요에관한소고, 대한병원협회지, 4 (10): 12~15, 1975.

6). M.A. May; Personality in nature society and culture, NY, ALF Pres, 63: 1932.

7). 강규숙: 정현숙;간호대학학생의학업성적예측에관한연干, 연세대학교는물지: 1: ²⁷여³⁹: 19 76.

8). Beaver A.P.; Personality factors in choice of nursing, J Appl Psyc, 37: 374~379, 1953.

9). ieaver A.P.; Psychometric data and survival in a collese of nursing, Psyc Reports. 2: 223–226, 195&.

10). 강경자;간호원에대한사회적인평가, 2 (1): 19 71.

11). 하영수.;4년재간호대학에관한조사연干, 대한간흐: 9: 2829, 1969.

12). 이귀향, 이영복: 간호사.회학, 수문사, 9– 10, 19 82.

41). 한국간호원워윤리강령: 대한간호협회제정공포.

15). 최정훈: 대학생학업성적에관한일반적성검사의예언타당도연구: 연세대학교인문과학연구소: 인물과학, 9: 162~163, 1963.

16). 최정r훈;화함성적타당도에관한추급연구: 연세대학교인불과학연구소.: 인품과학, U: 1965.

17). 카축릭의대간호학과;병원사회에있어서의인간적: 계, 다한7 (2): 13~24, 1967.

18). 인환괄재론, 서울,.4명물화가, 13113?, 1966,.

19). Elwood, R.H.; The role of personality t확it in -seiestiag A.carrer tbe attree and the. college ssril, J. 4, 19~2β, 19있.

20). .

21). Kim Yeong Seep; Δfuture perspective for demands and supplies of Korean health care personnels in the year 2000, THE HANYAUNG JOURNAL OE PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, 2: 39– 85, 1981.

22). 박동서: 한국행정론: 법문사, 307–309, 1981.

23). 방용자;간호원의근무성적예칙에관한연구: 카불리의대는문, 4 (3): 57–62, 1974.

24). 심경석: 성격哥성과학력간의상관적연구, 연세대학교교육대학초등교육행정전공, 석사학위는문: 1970.

25). John R. Thurster & Helen L. Brunclik; The relationship of personality to achievement in nursing educations, nursing research summer, 14 (3): 203~209, 1965.

26). 광매련: 간호업무평정, 대한간호, 13 (4): 23여24: 1974.

27). M.M. Reece; Personality characteristics & success in a nursing program, nursing research, 10: 172 -176, 1961.

28). 정현숙;간호원의근무성적예측변인의효울성에관한연구, 학회지: 7 (1): 112.120, 1977.

29). Maelow, Abraham: Motivation & Personality, Ν. Y. Hoper & Row, 484–485, 1SS4.