About this item:

215 Views | 56 Downloads

Author Notes:

Corresponding author. Center for Leadership in Disability, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Georgia State University, USA. bbarger1@gsu.edu (B. Barger).

The authors have no conflicts of interest.

The authors have indicated they have no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Subjects:

Research Funding:

This research was funded in part by a Policy Research Fellowship sponsored by the University of South Carolina: Disability Research and Dissemination Center in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center on Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Learn the Signs. Act Early. Team.

Better together: Developmental screening and monitoring best identify children who need early intervention

Tools:

Journal Title:

Disability and Health Journal

Volume:

Volume 11, Number 3

Publisher:

, Pages 420-426

Type of Work:

Article | Post-print: After Peer Review

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.

Copyright information:

© 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

This is an Open Access work distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Creative Commons License

Export to EndNote