ArticleBMC primary care2023
Routine developmental screening in Australian general practice: a pilot study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advancing equity in neurodevelopmental care with the Tracking Cube: protocol for an effectiveness-implementation hybrid (type 1) stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Survey of Well-being of Young Children: Implementation and Impact on Care Quality.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundParents' Evaluation of Developmental Status, (PEDS), is a validated screening tool designed for primary health care clinicians to assess child development. Despite widespread use by local government child-nurse services, PEDS has not been tested in Australian general practice. We examined the effect of an intervention that aimed to use PEDS to improve documented assessment of child developmental status during routine general practice consultations.
methodsThe study took place in a single general practice in Melbourne, Australia. The intervention included training of all general practice staff regarding PEDS processes and provision of PEDS questionnaires, scoring and interpretation forms. Mixed methods incorporated audits of clinical records of young children (1 to ≤ 5 years) before and after the intervention, and written questionnaires and a focus group (informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and COM-B model) with receptionists, practice nurses and general practitioners.
resultsDocumented developmental status more than doubled after the intervention with almost one in three (30.4%) records documenting the PEDS tool. Overall, staff responses to questionnaires indicated that PEDS processes had been successfully implemented, half of the staff felt PEDS had developed their professional skills and clinicians expressed confidence using the tool (71%). Thematic analysis of the focus group transcript revealed divided reactions to PEDS screening with most barriers arising from general practitioners' motivation to use PEDS tools and perceptions of environmental constraints.
conclusionsA team-practice intervention that applied PEDS training and implementation, more than doubled documented rates of child developmental status during routine visits. Solutions to underlying barriers could be incorporated into a revised training module. Future studies need to test the tool in more methodologically robust studies that include analysis of the outcomes of developmental surveillance and long-term sustainability of PEDS use in practices.
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.