ArticleBMC pediatrics2020
Comparing Two Early Child Development Assessment Tools in Rural Limpopo, South Africa.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developmental delay in a resource-constrained environment: An approach to early intervention.South African family practice : official journal of the South African Academy of Family Practice/Primary Care · 2021Review
- Assessing early child development and its association with stunting and schistosome infections in rural Zimbabwean children using the Griffiths Scales of Child Development.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProviding increased cognitive stimulation or learning opportunities to young children significantly increases cognitive and social-emotional competence later in life. This study aims to determine the acceptability of a pediatric assessment tool to track early child development (ECD) in a rural health district in Limpopo, South Africa.
methodsA total of 11 primary health nurses from the region in two focus groups were selected to learn and compare two ECD assessment tools: the Cognitive Adaptive Test/Clinical Linguistic and Auditory Milestone Scale (CAT/CLAMS) and Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ). Data were analyzed using versus coding to compare between the two focus groups and between ASQ and CAT/CLAMS.
resultsThe major categories that emerged from the discussion were current practice, usability, resource management, cultural adaptation, patient and parent factors, and new knowledge.
conclusionsThis study illustrates the challenges related to adapting and implementing ECD assessment in an environment where ECD is largely unknown by local residents, and differs from the environment in which the tool was initially developed. Further work is needed to develop new tools or alter existing tools that can be adapted to diverse settings and cultures.
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.