南非的发育筛查：将国家发育检查表与标准化工具进行比较。
Developmental screening in South Africa: comparing the national developmental checklist to a standardized tool.
作者信息
van der Linde Jeannie, Swanepoel De Wet, Glascoe Frances Page, Louw E M, Vinck Bart
机构信息
Department of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
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.
出版信息
Afr Health Sci. 2015 Mar;15(1):188-96. doi: 10.4314/ahs.v15i1.25.
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.
背景
在全球范围内，低收入和中等收入国家有超过2亿儿童存在发育迟缓及/或残疾问题。在南非，唯一全国推行的发育“筛查”工具被整合到《健康之路手册》（RTHB）中作为其一部分。
方法
本研究采用比较性横断面受试者内设计，以对照标准化国际工具（即由PEDS和PEDS:DM组成的PEDS工具）评估RTHB发育检查表的准确性。通过便利抽样，在南非比勒陀利亚的初级卫生保健机构共纳入了201名参与者。
结果
RTHB发育检查表的敏感性较低，但特异性较高。RTHB发育检查表未能识别出超过半数有发育迟缓或障碍风险的婴儿。全国推行的发育检查表在识别有风险婴儿方面无效。应进行调整和验证，或予以替换，以改善对有风险婴儿的识别。
Zotero 插件