Routine Developmental Screening Research Articles

Developmental delay and its associated factors among children of 9 months and of 18 months attending primary health facilities in an urban resettlement area of East Delhi

ABSTRACT Background: Early identification of developmental delay in children can help in making early intervention for its management. Routine developmental screening is not being practised in India due to lack of trained field workers, lack of awareness among parents and lack of feasible assessment screening tool. There is lack of studies that focuses on home environment provided to the children as it is associated with developmental delay. Methods: A cross sectional study was conducted in immunization clinic of two Maternal and Child Welfare (MCW) centres of Nand Nagari, an urban resettlement colony in East Delhi among children of 9 months and 18 months of age. New Delhi Development Status Questionnaire (ND-DSQ) was used for assessment of developmental status. Data on socio-demographic profile, home stimulation of the child and anthropometric measurements including weight, height was collected. Chi-square test was used for univariate analysis and binary logistic regression was used to find out the predictors of developmental delay. Results: The prevalence of DD was found to be 17.7% in children 9 m of age, and 10% in 18 m. On univariate analysis preterm gestation, low-birth weight of the child, lower mother’s education status and presence of complications at birth were significantly associated with developmental delay. The independent predictors of DD were presence of complications at birth, preterm gestation, lower mother’s education status and underweight children. Conclusion: This study reports a higher prevalence of DD. More follow up studies on DD is needed to see the course of achievement of developmental milestones. Screening for developmental milestones can be done during visit for immunization.

A 9-year retrospective cohort study of the monitoring and screening of childhood developmental delay in Thailand.

Developmental delay in early childhood can have negative long-term cognitive and psychiatric sequelae, along with poor academic achievement, so early screening and surveillance are paramount. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of screening and surveillance on child developmental delay using the Developmental Surveillance and Promotion Manual (DSPM) and the Thai Early Developmental Assessment for Intervention (TEDA4I) for Thai children aged 0-5years old. Data were obtained from the routine developmental screening for specific disorders at ages 9, 18, 30, 42 and 60 months conducted using DSPM and TEDA4I from 2013 to 2021. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data, and the results are visualised graphically herein. Only 56% of the children were screened for child developmental delay using DSPM. The proportion of children screened increased from <1% in 2013 to 90% in 2021. Suspected developmental delay prevalence increased significantly from 3.91% in 2013-2015 to 10.00% in 2016-2018 and 26.48% in 2019-2021. Moreover, of the children with suspected developmental delay who received developmental stimulation within a month, only 87.9% returned for follow-up visits when they were evaluated again using TEDA4I to ascertain any abnormalities and specific areas of deficit. The overall proportion of children diagnosed with developmental delay was 1.29%. During the pandemic, the proportion of screening tests for child developmental delay at routine vaccination visits and follow-ups decreased but was still at least 80% in each region. Since 1%-3% of children have suspected developmental delay, early detection is key to treating it as soon as possible. We anticipate that our findings will raise awareness in parents and caregivers about childhood developmental delay and lead to the implementation of early intervention and follow-up at the rural level in Thailand.

Routine developmental screening in Australian general practice: a pilot study

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.

Development and validation of the Ibadan Simplified Developmental Screening chart.

Developmental assessment remains an integral part of the routine evaluation of the wellbeing of every child. Children in resource-poor countries are not routinely assessed for signs of developmental delay and developmental disorders are frequently overlooked. A major gap exists in the availability of culturally appropriate and cost-effective developmental screening tools in many low and middle income countries (LMICs) with large populations. To bridge the existing gap, we describe the process of the development and validation of the Ibadan Simplified Developmental Screening (ISDS) chart, for routine developmental screening in Nigerian children. We developed an item pool across 4 domains of development namely, the gross motor, vision-fine motor, communication and socio-behavioural domains. The ISDS chart consists of 3-4 item questions for each domain of development, and responses are to be provided by the caregiver. Each chart is age-specific, from 6 weeks to 12 months. A total score derived from the summation of the scores in each domain are plotted on the ISDS scoring guide with a pass or fail score. Each child was evaluated by the Ages and Stages Questionnaire as the standard. A total of 950 infants; 453 males and 497 females were enrolled. The estimates of internal consistency between the two instruments ranged between 0.7-1.0. Using the ASQ as the gold standard, the ISDS chart demonstrated a sensitivity of 98.8%, 78.4% and 99.7% in the gross motor, communication and the social and emotional domains respectively, for detecting infants who might require further assessment for developmental delays. The indigenous tool fills a major gap in the need for cost-effective interventions for developmental monitoring in LMICs. Future work should include the deployment of the tool in the wider population, using digital health approaches that could underpin policy making in the region.

Standardization of a Developmental Milestone Scale Using Data From Children in Israel

Routine developmental screening tests for children are used worldwide for early detection of developmental delays. However, assessment of developmental milestone norms lacks strong normative data, and there are inconsistencies among different screening tools. To establish milestone norms and build an updated developmental scale. This is a cross-sectional, population-based study conducted between 2014 and 2020. Developmental assessments were conducted by trained public health nurses, documented in national maternal child health clinics, known as Tipat Halav, which serve all children in Israel. Participants included all children born between January 2014 and September 2020, who were followed at the maternal child health clinics from birth to age 6 years. Exclusion criteria were preterm birth, missing gestational age, low birth weight (<2.5 kg), abnormal weight measurement (<3% according to standardized child growth charts), abnormal head circumference measurement (<3% or >97% according to standardized child growth charts), and visits without developmental data or without the child's age. Data analysis was performed from September 2020 to June 2021. In total, 59 milestones in 4 developmental domains were evaluated, and the achievement rate per child's age was calculated for each milestone. A contemporary developmental scale, the Tipat Halav Israel Screening (THIS) Developmental Scale, was built, presenting the 75%, 90%, and 95% achievement rates for each milestone. The THIS scale was compared with other commonly used screening tests, including the Denver Developmental Screening Test II (Denver II), the Alberta Infant Motor Scale (AIMS), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Developmental Assessment. A total of 839 574 children were followed in the maternal child health clinics between January 2014 and September 2020 in Israel, and 195 616 children were excluded. A total of 3 774 517 developmental assessments were performed for the remaining 643 958 children aged 0 to 6 years (319 562 female children [49.6%]), resulting in the establishment of new developmental norms. In terms of the comparable milestones, THIS milestones had a match of 18 of 27 (67%) with the Denver II, 7 of 7 (100%) with AIMS, and 10 of 19 (53%) with the CDC Developmental Assessment. The remaining unmatched milestones were achieved earlier in the THIS scale compared with other screening tools. The THIS developmental scale is based on the largest population evaluated to date for developmental performance, representing the heterogeneous, multicultural population comprising this cohort. It is recommended for further evaluation worldwide.

Predictive utility of the ages and stages questionnaire for below average cognitive ability at age 5

Abstract Background The first 1000 days of life are a period of unique sensitivity and plasticity during which critical cognitive abilities are formed. For children at risk of later cognitive difficulties, this period is the ideal target for early intervention initiatives. Routine developmental screening tools aim to identify infants who would benefit from early intervention. While these tools have been validated for detecting children with more severe neurodevelopmental disorders, their ability to identify the larger proportion with below average cognitive ability has not been sufficiently explored. The aim of this study was to examine the predictive utility of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ), for identifying children with later below average cognitive function. Methods The study population (n = 8260) is formed from two national cohort studies, the Growing Up in Ireland Infant cohort (n = 7,444) and the Cork BASELINE cohort (n = 816). The ASQ was completed at 8- and 24-months respectively. Cognitive assessments were performed at age 5. Those scoring &amp;lt;1 standard deviation below the mean were categorised as below average cognitive ability. Applying the currently used onward referral criterion (one fail in any domain) the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the 8- and 24-month ASQ for detecting children with later below average cognitive function were calculated. Results The sensitivities of the 8-month and 24-month ASQ for detecting children with below average cognitive ability were 16.4% (95% CI 14.0-19.0) and 20.8% (95% CI 13.6-30.2) respectively, with specificity of 92.0% (95% CI 91.3-92.6) and 91.1% (95% CI 88.6-93.2). Conclusions The ASQ has a low sensitivity for identifying children with below average cognitive ability at age 5. The findings of this study suggest that if we are to intervene early in the developmental trajectory for children with below average cognitive ability alternative methods of identifying high risk infants are needed. Key messages The ages and stages questionnaire, a widely used routine infant developmental screening tool, has a low sensitivity between 16%-21% for detecting later below average cognitive ability. To enable intervention in the first 1000 days of life for children at risk of later below average cognitive ability alternative methods of screening and risk identification require investigation.

Discharge of Medically Complex Infants and Developmental Follow-up.

At the time of discharge from the NICU, many infants have ongoing complex medical issues that will require coordinated, multispecialty follow-up. Discharge planning and transfer of care for infants with medical complexity require a multidisciplinary team effort that begins early during the NICU hospitalization. It is critical that the primary care physician is involved in this process because he or she will serve as the chief communicator and coordinator of care after discharge. Although some infants with medical complexity may be followed in specialized multidisciplinary NICU follow-up clinics, these are not universally available. The responsibility then falls to the primary care physician to coordinate with different subspecialties based on the infant's needs. Many infants with medical complexity are technology-dependent at the time of discharge and may require home oxygen, ventilators, monitors, or tube feeding. Prematurity, critical illness, and prolonged NICU hospitalization that lead to medical complexity also increase the risk of neurodevelopmental delay or impairment. As such, these infants will not only require routine developmental surveillance and screening by the primary care physician but also should be followed longitudinally by a neurodevelopmental specialist, either a developmental-behavioral pediatrician or a neonatologist with experience in neurodevelopmental assessment.

Early-onset developmental impairments among infants attending the routine immunization clinic at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria.

Developmental disorders are frequently overlooked in the developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Early identification of developmental delays (DDs) is critical to optimal outcomes. This study set out to determine the proportion of children who are at risk of DDs among infants attending immunization clinics at the University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria. Infants 6 weeks to 12 months of age (median age 6 months) who presented for routine immunization were screened for DDs using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire. A total of 587 infants [312 (53.2%) males] were enrolled. A total of 198 (33.7%) children showed signs of DDs. For the domains of communication skills, fine motor skills, gross motor skills, problem solving/cognition skills and personal/social skills, the prevalences of DDs were 7.5%, 15.0%, 10.7%, 14.1% and 14.8%, respectively, and 14.3% had global DDs. Factors that significantly predicted DDs included prematurity (odds ratio [OR] 2.64 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.45 to 2.05]) and a history of perinatal asphyxia (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.77 to 2.49]). There is a need to incorporate routine developmental screening into the Nigerian healthcare system for timely recognition of DDs and prompt interventions.

Colocated Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics in Primary Care: Improved Outcome Across Settings.

We developed a colocation "Rapid Developmental Evaluation" (RDE) model for Developmental-Behavioral Pediatrics (DBP) to evaluate young children for developmental concerns raised during routine developmental surveillance and screening in a pediatric primary care Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). In this low-income patient population, we anticipated that colocation would improve patient access to DBP and decrease time from referral to first developmental evaluation and therapeutic services. Children were assessed at the FQHC by a DBP pediatrician, who made recommendations for therapeutic services and further diagnostic evaluations. A retrospective chart review over 27 months (N = 151) investigated dates of referral and visit, primary concern, diagnosis, and referral to tertiary DBP center and associated tertiary DBP center dates of service and diagnoses if appropriate. We surveyed primary care clinicians (PCCs) for satisfaction. The DBP pediatrician recommended that 51% of children be referred to the tertiary DBP center for further diagnostic evaluation or routine DBP follow-up. Average wait from referral to an RDE visit was 57 days compared with 137.3 days for the tertiary DBP center. Children referred from RDE to the tertiary DBP center completed visits at a higher rate (77%) than those referred from other sites (54%). RDE-recommended therapeutic services were initiated for 73% of children by the tertiary visit. Fidelity of diagnosis between RDE and the tertiary DBP center was high, as was PCC satisfaction. Colocation of a DBP pediatrician in an FQHC primary care pediatrics program decreased time to first developmental assessment and referral for early intervention services for an at-risk, low-income patient population.

Developmental Screening: What Every Nurse Practitioner Needs to Know

Developmental screening is performed to identify quickly and reliably those children whose developmental level is below normal for their age and who may benefit from further investigation. Nurse practitioners are uniquely positioned to offer routine developmental screening, leading to early identification, referral for diagnostic evaluation, and early intervention services when appropriate. The purpose of this article to inform nurse practitioners of the importance of employing evidence-based recommendations for developmental screening in primary care. Current screening recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics are discussed, and validated developmental screening instruments are highlighted.

Developmental status of preschool children receiving cART: a descriptive cohort study.

HIV is known to cause neurodevelopmental problems in infants and young children. The impact of HIV on the development of preschool-age children has been less well described. The study was conducted at an urban paediatric HIV clinic in Johannesburg, South Africa. A sample of convenience was used. Sixty-eight medically stable children between the ages of 3 and 5 years were assessed with the Griffiths Scales of Mental Development. Children were excluded from the study if they had severe HIV encephalopathy, which made it impossible for them to participate in the items on the Griffiths Scales of Mental Development. The children had started combination antiretroviral treatment (cART) at a mean age of 8.1 months. The majority of the children were virologically suppressed and did not present with wasting or stunting. Severe overall developmental delay (z-scores < -2SD) was detected in 55.88% of children. Developmental facets related to speech, cognition and perception were the most severely affected. Personal-social development was the least affected with only 13.4% of the children demonstrating severe delay. Despite having early access to cART, children infected with HIV are still at risk for severe developmental delay across a number of facets. Very early initiation of cART may help alleviate this problem. All preschool children infected with HIV should have routine developmental screening.

Can Screening with the Ages and Stages Questionnaire Detect Autism?

Parents rely on pediatricians to monitor their child's development. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends routine developmental screening with both broadband and autism-specific instruments at specified ages. If broadband screeners can detect autism risk, this might minimize the burden of administering autism-specific screens to all children. The current study examines the ability of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-Third Edition (ASQ-3) to identify children at risk for autism. We looked at ASQ-3 scores of children who screen positive on the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers-Revised (M-CHAT-R), children who continue to screen positive on the M-CHAT-R Follow-up Interview, and children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). A total of 2848 toddlers, aged 16 to 30 months, were screened with the ASQ-3 and M-CHAT-R across 20 pediatric sites. Children who screened positive on the M-CHAT-R and its follow-up interview were offered a diagnostic evaluation. Using the "monitor and/or fail" cutoff on any domain, the ASQ-3 identified 87% of the children who screened positive on the M-CHAT-R with follow-up and 95% (20/21) of those diagnosed with an ASD. Monitor and/or fail on the Communication domain alone also identified 95% of the diagnosed children. Scores below the "monitor" cutoff on the Communication domain of the ASQ-3 can indicate initial concern requiring autism-specific follow-up. If these results are confirmed with a sample large enough to separately examine toddlers of different ages and different cultural backgrounds, it may be feasible to implement a 2-stage screening strategy, with autism-specific screening reserved for those who are positive on a broadband screen.

Neurodevelopmental outcome following open heart surgery in infancy: 6-year follow-up.

Children undergoing open heart surgery are at risk of neurological injury. A cohort of 35 patients, who had undergone cardiac surgery during infancy, had a significant reduction in Bayley Scale of Infant Development scores at a 12-month assessment. This cohort has now reached an appropriate age to reassess developmental progress. Detailed psychometric testing was conducted on 20 children from the original cohort using the Weschler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. Parents completed the Connor's Rating Scale, the Behaviour Rating Scale of Executive Functioning, and the Child Behaviour Checklist. The mean age of the cohort at assessment was 6.6 (standard deviation 0.4) years. Mean scores on all tests of intelligence, memory, academic achievement, and executive function fell within the average range. Of the children, 20-35% were found to have significant difficulties across these areas. Mean scores in the areas of social, emotional, behavioural, and psychological functioning also fell within the average range. Of the children studied, 35% had clinically significant problems in these areas. There was only a weak association between the 12-month scores and the Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient at 6 years. Detailed psychometric testing of these children suggests that they generally function in the average range; however, a significant proportion falls below age expectations in all the areas assessed. This highlights the importance of long-term follow-up with routine developmental screening to allow identification of a subgroup that may benefit from early educational and behavioural intervention.

Responding to the Christmas Island health care crisis

To the Editor: Recent media reports of unsafe maternal and child health practices at the Christmas Island immigration detention centre suggest an alarming contrast between the care available to asylum seekers and that available to Australian nationals.1,2 The reports also appear at odds with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's factsheet that states: “All detainees in immigration detention have access to health care at a standard generally comparable to the health care available to the Australian community”3 — though the use of “generally” allows for unqualified departure from the standard. Australia's low infant mortality rate (3.3/1000 births)4 is testament to high-quality specialist antenatal, perinatal and child health services. Yet on Christmas Island, where pregnant women are detained and for whom Australia has a duty of care, there is no sonographer. A pregnant woman who was denied an ultrasound and miscarried was apparently told: “They keep telling me that you are in detention centre and should not expect a lot”.1 This seems somewhat callous — since current policy appears designed to routinely detain pregnant women on Christmas Island. In our view, if this is to happen, then it is reasonable for a mother to expect access to appropriate antenatal and perinatal care, and for that care to be provided. Doctors providing services on the island have raised concerns that routine developmental screening and assessment does not occur for children, and that specialist paediatric mental health support is not available.2 While we oppose the detention of children, if it occurs, then adequate child health services must be provided. Remoteness is not an excuse: Australia has considerable history and expertise in providing health care services against geographical challenges, whether by specialist outreach services or by aeromedical retrieval. Australia also has one of the largest reported paediatric telemedicine services, which has provided specialist advice, including in perinatal care and child and youth mental health, throughout Queensland since 1999.5 While local clinical resources clearly need to be increased, support could and should be provided to clinicians through the appropriate use of telemedicine. It need not be technically complex or expensive, and the necessary resources exist within Australia. No relevant disclosures.

Improving the odds for effective developmental surveillance

Improving the odds for effective developmental surveillance

Routine developmental and autism screening in an epilepsy care setting

Developmental delay (delay) and co-morbidities like autism are common in children with epilepsy. We assessed the yield of routine screening for delay and autism in a hospital-based program.Parents completed developmental and autism screeners for 65 children (average age=2.5y; 38(58%) boys). Forty-nine (75%) were established epilepsy patients, and 16 (25%) were new patients.For development, 47 (72%) children screened positive and 8 (12%) had borderline results. Twenty-four (37%) scored positive for autism, all of whom also screened positive for developmental delay. Delays and neurologic deficits accounted for the positive autism results in 20 of the 24.Developmental findings were confirmatory (already receiving services) in 32/55 (58%) children and actionable in 17 (31%) (requiring further evaluation).Referrals for further evaluations were made for most with actionable findings. The yield of routine screening of children in a tertiary center is sufficiently high to support its use and to consider screening of all children seen with epilepsy.

Screening for Developmental Delay in High-Risk Users of an Urban Pediatric Emergency Department

To determine whether screening children in an urban pediatric emergency department (PED) would lead to identification of previously undiagnosed developmental delay. This was a cross-sectional study of families presenting to an urban public hospital PED with children 6 to 36 months and no history of developmental delay. Children were screened for possible developmental delay using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire; parents completed an instrument that assesses 5 domains: communication, gross motor, fine motor, problem solving, and personal-social. Sociodemographic data were also obtained. One hundred thirty-eight children were enrolled, all accompanied by their mothers. Mean age of the children was 18.9 months; 51.5% were female; 56.8% of the mothers were high-school graduates; 59.9% were immigrants; 75.4% were Latino. Twenty-one percent did not have a regular source of primary care; 26.8% (95% confidence interval, 20.1%-34.8%) screened positive in at least 1 domain, with a trend toward the highest percentage of positive screens on the communication domain (z = 1.89, P = 0.059). In a simultaneous multiple logistic regression model including all predictor variables, child age of 12 to 30 months was associated with increased adjusted odds of positive screen (adjusted odds ratio, 8.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-48.9). Having a primary caregiver born in the United States was statistically significant for screening positive in at least 1 Ages and Stages Questionnaire domain (P = 0.03). Almost 30% of 6- to 36-month-old children presenting to an urban PED without prior developmental concerns screened positive for possible delay, suggesting the utility of performing routine developmental screening in the PED. Pediatric emergency department use alone may be an indication for screening. Further study is needed for feasibility of screening for delay in the PED.

RE: Routine developmental screening at 5.5 and 7 years of age is not an efficient predictor of attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder – a critical comment: author’s reply

RE: Routine developmental screening at 5.5 and 7 years of age is not an efficient predictor of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder : a critical comment: author's reply

Routine developmental screening at 5.5 and 7 years of age is not an efficient predictor of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder – a critical comment

Routine developmental screening at 5.5 and 7 years of age is not an efficient predictor of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder – a critical comment

Routine developmental screening at 5.5 and 7 years of age is not an efficient predictor of attention‐deficit / hyperactivity disorder at age 10

The aim of this study was to assess the efficiency of developmental screening for deficits in attention, motor control and perception or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (DAMP/ADHD) at 5.5 and 7 years of age for diagnosing ADHD in grade 4. The study population consisted of 442 children from a cohort study of ADHD in 10-year olds in one municipality in Stockholm County. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of a developmental screening at 5.5 and at 7 years of age for being diagnosed with ADHD at 10 years of age was calculated. The sensitivity was 44%, the specificity 85% and the positive predictive value for having a diagnosis of pervasive ADHD in 4th grade was 15%, when at least two deviations in nine items was used as the cut-off point in 5.5-year screening at Child Health Centres (CHCs). With a cut-off score of at least two deviations in four items rated by parents or and teachers in 1st grade, these estimates were 58%, 81% and 15% respectively. This study demonstrates that developmental screening for DAMP/ADHD at 5.5 and 7 years of age does not identify children who are diagnosed with ADHD in grade 4 with a high degree of selectivity.