Suppr超能文献

公共卫生学前儿童发育筛查评估:一项社区项目的过程与结果

Evaluation of public health preschool child developmental screening: the process and outcomes of a community program.

作者信息

Cadman D, Chambers L W, Walter S D, Ferguson R, Johnston N, McNamee J

出版信息

Am J Public Health. 1987 Jan;77(1):45-51. doi: 10.2105/ajph.77.1.45.

Abstract

We conducted a randomized controlled trial of a public health and education screening program aimed at all 4,797 four to five year old children registering for kindergarten in three school districts of southern Ontario, Canada. Children received either the Denver Developmental Screening Test (DDST) with a community health intervention program for positive screeness; the DDST with no intervention for positive screenees; or no screening test. The intervention program consisted of referral to the child's physician for assessment; a review conference between the child's teacher and the school health nurse; parent counseling; and monitoring of the child in school by the school health nurse. At the end of the third school year, no differences were found between positive screenees in the community health intervention group and the "no intervention" groups using individual academic achievement, cognitive, and developmental tests. Parents' reports revealed no differences between groups in children's mental, social, and behavioral well-being. However, parents of intervention program children had more worry about their child's school progress suggesting a potentially harmful labeling effect. In comparison to a random sample of children with normal DDST results, or a random sample of children who had randomly not been screened, the children with positive preschool DDSTs had substantially more school problems three years after screening.

摘要

我们针对加拿大安大略省南部三个学区登记入学幼儿园的所有4797名4至5岁儿童,开展了一项公共卫生与教育筛查项目的随机对照试验。儿童被分为三组:接受丹佛发育筛查测试(DDST)并针对筛查阳性者接受社区健康干预项目;接受DDST但对筛查阳性者不进行干预;不接受筛查测试。干预项目包括将儿童转介给其医生进行评估;儿童教师与学校健康护士之间的审查会议;家长咨询;以及学校健康护士对在校儿童的监测。在第三学年末,使用个人学业成绩、认知和发育测试,未发现社区健康干预组和“无干预”组的筛查阳性者之间存在差异。家长报告显示,各组儿童在心理、社交和行为幸福感方面没有差异。然而,接受干预项目儿童的家长对孩子在学校的进展更为担忧,这表明可能存在有害的标签效应。与DDST结果正常的儿童随机样本或随机未接受筛查的儿童随机样本相比,学龄前DDST筛查呈阳性的儿童在筛查三年后出现的学校问题要多得多。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

2
Recommendations on screening for developmental delay.发育迟缓筛查建议。
CMAJ. 2016 May 17;188(8):579-587. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.151437. Epub 2016 Mar 29.
10
Preschool child health surveillance.学龄前儿童健康监测。
Qual Health Care. 1993 Jun;2(2):129-33. doi: 10.1136/qshc.2.2.129.

本文引用的文献

1
Toward a clarification of primary prevention.
Community Ment Health J. 1980 Winter;16(4):306-16. doi: 10.1007/BF00821562.
3
Missed opportunities for early diagnosis of cancer of the cervix.宫颈癌早期诊断的错失机会。
Am J Public Health. 1980 Apr;70(4):418-20. doi: 10.2105/ajph.70.4.418.
5
Primary prevention: aspects of program design and evaluation.一级预防:项目设计与评估的各个方面
J Am Acad Child Psychiatry. 1982 May;21(3):225-30. doi: 10.1016/s0002-7138(09)60874-8.
6
Coming of age in general pediatrics.
Pediatrics. 1983 Sep;72(3):275-82.
9
Compliance in the community with consultants' recommendations for developmentally handicapped children.
Dev Med Child Neurol. 1984 Feb;26(1):40-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.1984.tb04404.x.
10
The Denver developmental screening test.丹佛发育筛查测验
J Pediatr. 1967 Aug;71(2):181-91. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3476(67)80070-2.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验