BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Various proposals have been made to redesign well-child care (WCC) for young children, yet no peer-reviewed publication has examined the evidence for these. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review on WCC clinical practice redesign for children aged 0 to 5 years. METHODS: PubMed was searched using criteria to identify relevant English-language articles published from January 1981 through February 2012. Observational studies, controlled trials, and systematic reviews evaluating efficiency and effectiveness of WCC for children aged 0 to 5 were selected. Interventions were organized into 3 categories: providers, formats (how care is provided; eg, non-face-to-face formats), and locations for care. Data were extracted by independent article review, including study quality, of 3 investigators with consensus resolution of discrepancies. RESULTS: Of 275 articles screened, 33 met inclusion criteria. Seventeen articles focused on providers, 13 on formats, 2 on locations, and 1 miscellaneous. We found evidence that WCC provided in groups is at least as effective in providing WCC as 1-on-1 visits. There was limited evidence regarding other formats, although evidence suggested that non-face-to-face formats, particularly web-based tools, could enhance anticipatory guidance and possibly reduce parents' need for clinical contacts for minor concerns between well-child visits. The addition of a non-medical professional trained as a developmental specialist may improve receipt of WCC services and enhance parenting practices. There was insufficient evidence on nonclinical locations for WCC. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that there are promising WCC redesign tools and strategies that may be ready for larger-scale testing and may have important implications for preventive care delivery to young children in the United States.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Various proposals have been made to redesign well-child care (WCC) for young children, yet no peer-reviewed publication has examined the evidence for these. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review on WCC clinical practice redesign for children aged 0 to 5 years. METHODS: PubMed was searched using criteria to identify relevant English-language articles published from January 1981 through February 2012. Observational studies, controlled trials, and systematic reviews evaluating efficiency and effectiveness of WCC for children aged 0 to 5 were selected. Interventions were organized into 3 categories: providers, formats (how care is provided; eg, non-face-to-face formats), and locations for care. Data were extracted by independent article review, including study quality, of 3 investigators with consensus resolution of discrepancies. RESULTS: Of 275 articles screened, 33 met inclusion criteria. Seventeen articles focused on providers, 13 on formats, 2 on locations, and 1 miscellaneous. We found evidence that WCC provided in groups is at least as effective in providing WCC as 1-on-1 visits. There was limited evidence regarding other formats, although evidence suggested that non-face-to-face formats, particularly web-based tools, could enhance anticipatory guidance and possibly reduce parents' need for clinical contacts for minor concerns between well-child visits. The addition of a non-medical professional trained as a developmental specialist may improve receipt of WCC services and enhance parenting practices. There was insufficient evidence on nonclinical locations for WCC. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that there are promising WCC redesign tools and strategies that may be ready for larger-scale testing and may have important implications for preventive care delivery to young children in the United States.
Authors: Deborah Levine; Jacqueline McCright; Loren Dobkin; Andrew J Woodruff; Jeffrey D Klausner Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2008-01-30 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Ateev Mehrotra; Margaret C Wang; Judith R Lave; John L Adams; Elizabeth A McGlynn Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2008 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Eric G Poon; Jonathan Wald; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Richard Grant; Tejal K Gandhi; Lynn A Volk; Amy Bloom; Deborah H Williams; Kate Gardner; Marianna Epstein; Lisa Nelson; Alex Businger; Qi Li; David W Bates; Blackford Middleton Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2007
Authors: Kenneth M McConnochie; Jonathan Tan; Nancy E Wood; Neil E Herendeen; Harriet J Kitzman; Jason Roy; Klaus J Roghmann Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Tumaini R Coker; Sandra Chacon; Marc N Elliott; Yovana Bruno; Toni Chavis; Christopher Biely; Christina D Bethell; Sandra Contreras; Naomi A Mimila; Jeffrey Mercado; Paul J Chung Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Sarah L Goff; Kathleen M Mazor; Aruna Priya; Michael Moran; Penelope S Pekow; Peter K Lindenauer Journal: Health Care Manage Rev Date: 2019-05-20
Authors: Naomi A Mimila; Paul J Chung; Marc N Elliott; Christina D Bethell; Sandra Chacon; Christopher Biely; Sandra Contreras; Toni Chavis; Yovana Bruno; Tanesha Moss; Tumaini R Coker Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Rheanna E Platt; Andrea E Spencer; Matthew D Burkey; Carol Vidal; Sarah Polk; Amie F Bettencourt; Sonal Jain; Julia Stratton; Lawrence S Wissow Journal: Int Rev Psychiatry Date: 2019-03-26
Authors: Lydia H Pecker; Sarah Kappa; Adam Greenfest; Deepika S Darbari; Robert Sheppard Nickel Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 4.406