OBJECTIVE: To determine if the 2006 American Academy of Pediatrics developmental surveillance and screening algorithm is adequate or if revisions are needed. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to investigate a clinician's ability to perform developmental-behavioral surveillance in children 0 to 5 years. RESULTS: Even when a broad-band developmental screen is typical, pediatricians should refer when they confidently suspect a delay but be far more suspicious about children who seem asymptomatic. Periodic screening enhances surveillance by improving early detection and early intervention (EI) eligibility rates. Nevertheless, children with concerning screens are not consistently referred and interlinked to EI. Once referred, approximately half are deemed EI-ineligible, even though they typically perform well below average and have numerous, predictive academic and psychosocial risk factors. Meanwhile, clinicians struggle with tracking at-risk children. CONCLUSION: Revisions are needed to optimize early detection, prevention, and monitoring. Greater emphasis is needed on developmental-behavioral promotion and referral care coordination.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the 2006 American Academy of Pediatrics developmental surveillance and screening algorithm is adequate or if revisions are needed. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to investigate a clinician's ability to perform developmental-behavioral surveillance in children 0 to 5 years. RESULTS: Even when a broad-band developmental screen is typical, pediatricians should refer when they confidently suspect a delay but be far more suspicious about children who seem asymptomatic. Periodic screening enhances surveillance by improving early detection and early intervention (EI) eligibility rates. Nevertheless, children with concerning screens are not consistently referred and interlinked to EI. Once referred, approximately half are deemed EI-ineligible, even though they typically perform well below average and have numerous, predictive academic and psychosocial risk factors. Meanwhile, clinicians struggle with tracking at-risk children. CONCLUSION: Revisions are needed to optimize early detection, prevention, and monitoring. Greater emphasis is needed on developmental-behavioral promotion and referral care coordination.
Authors: Bergen B Nelson; Rebecca N Dudovitz; Tumaini R Coker; Elizabeth S Barnert; Christopher Biely; Ning Li; Peter G Szilagyi; Kandyce Larson; Neal Halfon; Frederick J Zimmerman; Paul J Chung Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Lauren S Wakschlag; Megan Y Roberts; Rachel M Flynn; Justin D Smith; Sheila Krogh-Jespersen; Aaron J Kaat; Larry Gray; John Walkup; Bradley S Marino; Elizabeth S Norton; Matthew M Davis Journal: J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol Date: 2019-03-27
Authors: Anne M Roux; Patricia Herrera; Cheryl M Wold; Margaret C Dunkle; Frances P Glascoe; Paul T Shattuck Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: J Michael Murphy; Paul Bergmann; Cindy Chiang; Raymond Sturner; Barbara Howard; Madelaine R Abel; Michael Jellinek Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 7.124