ArticleBMC family practice2018
Health professional perceptions regarding screening tools for developmental surveillance for children in a multicultural part of Sydney, Australia.
Article in BMC family practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening tools for early identification of children with developmental delay in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- General practitioners' perspectives regarding early developmental surveillance for autism within the australian primary healthcare setting: a qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Voices for Change: Stakeholder Perspectives on Childhood Diagnostic Delays in Western Australia.Child: care, health and development · 2026Article
- Implementation of a Digital Tool to Identify Child Development and Parental Mental Health Needs Among Multicultural Communities Attending a School-Based Wellbeing Hub.Child: care, health and development · 2026Article
- Measuring child development at the 2-2½-year health and development review in England: a rapid scoping review of available tools.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Perspectives of paediatricians on developmental surveillance and screening in a low- to middle-income country: a qualitative study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Article
- Promoting Family Engagement With Early Childhood Developmental Screening via the Baby Steps Text Messaging and Web Portal System: Longitudinal Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2025Article
- Developmental screening at 18 months using the Nipissing District Developmental Screen.Paediatrics & child health · 2025Article
- Screening for developmental delay at 18 months using the Infant Toddler Checklist: A validation study.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- General Practitioners perspectives on infant telomere length screening after a pregnancy complication: a qualitative analysis.Family practice · 2024Article
- Family member and service provider experiences and perspectives of a digital surveillance and service navigation approach in multicultural context: a qualitative study in identifying the barriers and enablers to Watch Me Grow-Electronic (WMG-E) program with a culturally diverse community.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Early child development in England: cross-sectional analysis of ASQInternational journal of population data science · 2024Article
- Developmental screening tools for identification of children with developmental difficulties in high-income countries: a systematic review.Frontiers in child and adolescent psychiatry · 2023Review
- Predictive validity of the Infant Toddler Checklist in primary care at the 18-month visit and developmental diagnosis at 3-5 years: a prospective cohort study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2022Article
- Socio-cultural barriers to the delivery and utilisation of child healthcare services in rural Ghana: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- The Acceptability and Effectiveness of Web-Based Developmental Surveillance Programs: Rapid Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Review
- Postnatal screening and care for non-medical risk factors by preventive child healthcare in deprived and non-deprived neighbourhoods.BMC health services research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEncouraging early child development and the early identification of developmental difficulties is a priority. The Ministry of Health in the Australian State of New South Wales (NSW), has recommended a program of developmental surveillance using validated screening questionnaires, namely, the Parents' Evaluation of Development Status (PEDS) and Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQs), however, the use of these tools has remained sub-optimal. A longitudinal prospective birth cohort "Watch Me grow" study was carried out in the South Western Sydney (SW) region of NSW to ascertain the uptake as well as the strategies and the resources required to maximise engagement in the surveillance program. This paper reports on a qualitative component of the study examining the attitudes, enablers and barriers to the current developmental surveillance practices, with reference to screening tools, amongst health professionals.
methodsQualitative data from 37 primary health care providers in a region of relative disadvantage in Sydney was analysed.
resultsThe major themes that emerged from the data were the "difficulties/problems" and "positives/benefits" of surveillance in general, and "specificity" of the tools which were employed. Barriers of time, tool awareness, knowledge and access of referral pathways, and services were important for the physician providers, while the choice of screening tools and access to these tools in other languages were raised as important issues by Child and Family Health Nurses (CFHN). The use of these tools by health professionals was also influenced by what the professionals perceived as the parents' understanding of their child's development. While the PEDS and ASQs was utilised by CFHNs, both General Practitioners (GPs) and paediatricians commented that they lacked awareness of developmental screening tools and highlighted further training needs.
conclusionsThe results highlight the practical challenges to, and limited knowledge and uptake of, the use of recommended screening tools as part of developmental surveillance. There is a need for further research regarding the most effective integrated models of care which will allow for a better collaboration between parents and service providers and improve information sharing between different professionals such as CFHNs GPs, Practices nurses and Paediatricians involved in screening and surveillance programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.