Brian Barger1, Catherine Rice2, Rebecca Wolf3, Andrew Roach4. 1. USC, DRDC Policy Research Fellow at National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA; Center for Leadership in Disability, Georgia State University, School of Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Atlanta, GA, USA. Electronic address: bbarger1@gsu.edu. 2. Learn the Signs. Act Early., National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA; Emory Autism Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA. 3. Learn the Signs. Act Early., National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA. 4. Center for Leadership in Disability, Georgia State University, School of Public Health, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Widely recommended developmental surveillance methods include developmental monitoring (DM) and development screening (DS). Much research has been done on DS, but very little research has compared the effectiveness of DM and DS together. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between DM and DS in Part C early intervention (EI) service receipt. METHODS: Authors used data from the 2007/2008 and 2011/2012 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH). Authors report the prevalence of children aged 10 months to 3 years who received (a) DM only, (b) DS only, (c) both DM and DS, and (c) no DM or DS across survey years. Authors compare the odds of EI receipt across these groups. RESULTS: During both periods, estimated EI receipt prevalence was higher for children receiving both DM and DS (8.38% in 2007/2008; 6.47% in 2011/2012) compared to children receiving no DM or DS (1.31% in 2007/2008; 1.92% in 2011/2012), DM alone (2.74% in 2007/2008; 2.70% in 2011/2012), or DS alone (3.59% in 2007/2008; 3.09% in 2011/2012) (for both time frames, p < .05). From 2007/2008 to 2011/2012, the proportion of children receiving DS only and both DM and DS increased, while children receiving DM only and no DM or DS decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Children receiving DM and DS together were more likely to receive EI compared to children receiving DM alone, DS alone, or neither DM nor DS. These findings support the AAP recommendations indicating that DM and DS are complementary strategies for improving early identification and linkage to EI for young children. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: Widely recommended developmental surveillance methods include developmental monitoring (DM) and development screening (DS). Much research has been done on DS, but very little research has compared the effectiveness of DM and DS together. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between DM and DS in Part C early intervention (EI) service receipt. METHODS: Authors used data from the 2007/2008 and 2011/2012 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH). Authors report the prevalence of children aged 10 months to 3 years who received (a) DM only, (b) DS only, (c) both DM and DS, and (c) no DM or DS across survey years. Authors compare the odds of EI receipt across these groups. RESULTS: During both periods, estimated EI receipt prevalence was higher for children receiving both DM and DS (8.38% in 2007/2008; 6.47% in 2011/2012) compared to children receiving no DM or DS (1.31% in 2007/2008; 1.92% in 2011/2012), DM alone (2.74% in 2007/2008; 2.70% in 2011/2012), or DS alone (3.59% in 2007/2008; 3.09% in 2011/2012) (for both time frames, p < .05). From 2007/2008 to 2011/2012, the proportion of children receiving DS only and both DM and DS increased, while children receiving DM only and no DM or DS decreased. CONCLUSIONS:Children receiving DM and DS together were more likely to receive EI compared to children receiving DM alone, DS alone, or neither DM nor DS. These findings support the AAP recommendations indicating that DM and DS are complementary strategies for improving early identification and linkage to EI for young children. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bright futures; Child find; Developmental epidemiology; Developmental monitoring; Developmental screening; Developmental surveillance; Early intervention; Individuals with disabilities education act; Part C
Authors: Bonnie T Zima; J Michael Murphy; Sarah Hudson Scholle; Kimberly Eaton Hoagwood; Ramesh C Sachdeva; Rita Mangione-Smith; Donna Woods; Hayley S Kamin; Michael Jellinek Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Tracy M King; S Darius Tandon; Michelle M Macias; Jill A Healy; Paula M Duncan; Nancy L Swigonski; Stephanie M Skipper; Paul H Lipkin Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2010-01-25 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Carol L Wilkinson; M Jackson Wilkinson; Jennifer Lucarelli; Jason M Fogler; Ronald E Becker; Noelle Huntington Journal: J Dev Behav Pediatr Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.225
Authors: Matthew L Romo; Katharine H McVeigh; Phoebe Jordan; Jeanette A Stingone; Pui Ying Chan; George L Askew Journal: J Public Health (Oxf) Date: 2020-11-23 Impact factor: 2.341
Authors: M R DeBaun; L C Jordan; A A King; J Schatz; E Vichinsky; C K Fox; R C McKinstry; P Telfer; M A Kraut; L Daraz; F J Kirkham; M H Murad Journal: Blood Adv Date: 2020-04-28