Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29609547›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2018

Health professional perceptions regarding screening tools for developmental surveillance for children in a multicultural part of Sydney, Australia.

Pankaj Garg, My Trinh Ha, John Eastwood, Susan Harvey, Sue Woolfenden, Elisabeth Murphy, Cheryl Dissanayake, Katrina Williams, Bin Jalaludin, Anne McKenzie and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Early child development in England: cross-sectional analysis of ASQInternational journal of population data science · 2024
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

14 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Pankaj GargDepartment of Community Paediatrics, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, NSW, Australia.
My Trinh HaICAMHS, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
John EastwoodSchool of Women's and Children's Health, UNSW, Sydney, Australia.
Susan HarveySchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Griffiths University, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Sue WoolfendenSydney Children's Hospital Network (Randwick), Randwick, Australia.
Elisabeth MurphyNSW Ministry of Health, Sydney, Australia.
Cheryl DissanayakeOlga Tennison Autism Research Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Katrina WilliamsRoyal Children's Hospital, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Bin JalaludinNSW Ministry of Health, Sydney, Australia.
Anne McKenzieChild and Family Health Nursing, Primary and Community Health, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Stewart EinfeldCentre for Disability Research and Policy and Brain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Natalie SiloveThe Children's Hospital at Westmead, Westmead, NSW, Australia.
Kate ShortUniversity of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Valsamma EapenSchool of Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast, QLD, Australia. v.eapen@unsw.edu.au.
University of Sydney · AUGriffith University · AUNew South Wales Department of Health · AUSouth Western Sydney Local Health District · AULa Trobe University · AULiverpool Hospital · AUMurdoch Children's Research Institute · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude of Health PersonnelMass ScreeningChild DevelopmentChild, PreschoolDevelopmental DisabilitiesFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansInfantMaleNew South WalesParentsSurveys and QuestionnairesASQsChild developmentDevelopmental screeningPEDSPerceptionsProfessionals

Identifiers

PMID29609547
PMCPMC5879732
OpenAlexW2804500886

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.