Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20353499›Full record

ArticleActa paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992)2010

Developmental monitoring using caregiver reports in a resource-limited setting: the case of Kilifi, Kenya.

A Abubakar, P Holding, F Van de Vijver, G Bomu, A Van Baar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

A AbubakarCentre for Geographic Medicine Research - Coast, KEMRI/ Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya, and Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands. a.abubakarali@uvt.nl
P Holding
F Van de Vijver
G Bomu
A Van Baar

Funding

NIMH NIH HHS MH72597-02Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe main aim of the current study was to evaluate the reliability, validity and acceptability of developmental monitoring using caregiver reports among mothers in a rural African setting.

methodsA structured interview for parents of children aged 24 months and less was developed through both participant consultation and a review of literature. The reliability and validity of the schedule was evaluated through a 10-month monitoring programme of 95 children, aged 2-10 months. The acceptability of the process was evaluated by studying retention rates and by organizing focus group discussions with participating mothers.

resultsThe structured interview 'Developmental Milestones Checklist' consisted of 66 items covering three broad domains of child functioning: motor, language and personal-social development. The interview yielded scores of developmental achievements that showed high internal consistency and excellent test-retest reliability. The results were sensitive to maturational changes and nutritional deficiencies. In addition, acceptable retention rates of approximately 80% were found. Participating mothers reported that they found the procedures both acceptable and beneficial.

conclusionDevelopmental monitoring using caregiver report is a viable method to identify and monitor at-risk children in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Indexed as

Child DevelopmentInterviews as TopicMothersCaregiversData CollectionDeveloping CountriesFocus GroupsHumansInfantKenyaMother-Child RelationsReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsRural HealthSocioeconomic Factors

Identifiers

PMID20353499
PMCPMC2814084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.