Jeannie van der Linde1, De Wet Swanepoel2, Frances Page Glascoe3, E M Louw4, Bart Vinck5. 1. Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, South Africa. 2. Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, South Africa ; Ear Sciences Centre, School of Surgery, The University of Western Australia, Nedlands ; Australia Ear Science Institute Australia, Subiaco, Australia. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee, USA. 4. Department of Statistics, University of Pretoria, South Africa. 5. Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, South Africa ; Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, Ghent University, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Worldwide, more than 200 million children in low- and middle-income countries have developmental delays and/or disabilities. In South Africa the only nationally implemented developmental 'screening' tool is integrated as part of 'The Road to Health Booklet (RTHB). METHOD: The study employed a comparative cross-sectional within-subject design to evaluate the accuracy of the RTHB developmental checklist against a standardized international tool i.e. the PEDS tools, consisting of the PEDS and PEDS:DM. A total of 201 participants were included through convenience sampling at primary health care facilities in Tshwane, South Africa. RESULTS: Sensitivity of the RTHB developmental checklist is low, but specificity is high. The RTHB developmental checklist failed to identify more than half the infants at risk of delays or disorders. The nationally implemented developmental checklist is ineffective to identify at-risk infants. It should be adapted and validated or replaced in order to improve identification of at-risk infants.
BACKGROUND: Worldwide, more than 200 million children in low- and middle-income countries have developmental delays and/or disabilities. In South Africa the only nationally implemented developmental 'screening' tool is integrated as part of 'The Road to Health Booklet (RTHB). METHOD: The study employed a comparative cross-sectional within-subject design to evaluate the accuracy of the RTHB developmental checklist against a standardized international tool i.e. the PEDS tools, consisting of the PEDS and PEDS:DM. A total of 201 participants were included through convenience sampling at primary health care facilities in Tshwane, South Africa. RESULTS: Sensitivity of the RTHB developmental checklist is low, but specificity is high. The RTHB developmental checklist failed to identify more than half the infants at risk of delays or disorders. The nationally implemented developmental checklist is ineffective to identify at-risk infants. It should be adapted and validated or replaced in order to improve identification of at-risk infants.
Entities:
Keywords:
at-risk infants; developmental delays or disorders; developmental screening; early identification
Authors: Maria Van der Merwe; Marlé Cilliers; Celesté Maré; Jeannie Van der Linde; Mia Le Roux Journal: Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med Date: 2017-06-28