Premium
Point prevalence and motor function of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy in Scandinavia and Scotland: a CP‐North study
Author(s) -
Hollung Sandra Julsen,
Hägglund Gunnar,
Gaston Mark S,
Seid Abdu Kedir,
Lydersen Stian,
AlrikssonSchmidt Ann I,
Andersen Guro L
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
developmental medicine and child neurology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.658
H-Index - 143
eISSN - 1469-8749
pISSN - 0012-1622
DOI - 10.1111/dmcn.14764
Subject(s) - cerebral palsy , gross motor function classification system , logistic regression , confidence interval , demography , spastic , medicine , odds ratio , covariate , prevalence , pediatrics , epidemiology , physical therapy , statistics , mathematics , sociology
Aim To describe the point prevalence of cerebral palsy (CP) and distribution of gross and fine motor function in individuals registered in a CP‐North surveillance programme. Method Aggregate data of individuals with CP aged 6 to 19 years, sex, CP subtype, and gross and fine motor function levels were collected from each programme. Overall and age‐specific point prevalence of CP was calculated for each programme using 95% confidence intervals. Logistic regression was used to estimate prevalence and CP subtypes with age as the covariate variable. Pearson χ 2 tests were used to compare the distributions of CP subtypes, Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels, and Manual Ability Classification System (MACS) levels by age and between programmes. Results Among 3 759 138 individuals residing in Scandinavia and Scotland, 8278 had a diagnosis of CP (57–59% were males). The overall point prevalence of CP ranged from 2.13 to 2.32 per 1000 residents. Age‐specific prevalence in each programme varied with the exception of Denmark. While the proportions of bilateral spastic CP were similar between programmes, there were variations in all other CP subtypes and in GMFCS and MACS levels. Interpretation While the results of this study may reflect real differences in CP populations between countries, they may not be clinically relevant. The variations may be attributable to differences in the year when each programme was first established, different data collection methods, and country‐specific governmental policies.