Known groups validity of the SPARK36: To guide nurse-led consultations for the early detection of child developmental and parenting problems.

AIM: Early detection of child developmental and parenting problems is important for timely prevention. The SPARK36 (Structured Problem Analysis of Raising Kids aged 36 months) is a novel broad-scope structured interview guide aimed at assessing parenting concerns and needs for support for child developmental and parenting problems, using the parental and professional's (Youth Health Care nurses) perspective. The applicability of the SPARK36 in practice was already demonstrated. Our aim was to evaluate its known groups validity. DESING/METHODS: SPARK36 data were collected in a cross-sectional study in 2020-2021. The known groups validity was assessed by testing two hypotheses: the SPARK36 risk assessment shows a higher risk of parenting and child developmental problems in children (1) from parents with a lower socioeconomic status and (2) from families with ≥4 risk factors for child maltreatment. To test the hypotheses, Fisher's exact tests were applied. RESULTS: In total, 29 Youth Health Care nurses from four School Health Services performed SPARK36-led consultations with 599 parent-child pairs to assess the risk for child developmental and parenting problems. Both hypotheses were accepted at a significant p level. CONCLUSION: The results of the known groups validity support the hypothesis that the SPARK36 risk assessment for child developmental and parenting problems is carried out in a valid way. Future research is needed to assess other aspects of the validity and reliability of the SPARK36. IMPACT: This is a first step in validating the instrument for use during a nurse-led consultation with parents of 3-year-olds in Flemish School Health Services. Thereby, SPARK36 supports the nurses in accomplishing their assignment, making a risk assessment, and contributes to quality of care. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study aimed to evaluate the known groups validity of the SPARK36. Therefore, it was not conducted using input from the public or the patient population.

Novel instrument to guide nurse-led consultations with parents of three-year-olds in school health services in Flanders: A feasibility study of SPARK36.

BACKGROUND: In the framework of new legislation on School Health Services (SHS) in Flanders (Belgium), nurses lead a preventive consultation with every three-year-old child and its parent(s), with the aim of assessing risks in child development and potential parenting problems. This study assesses the feasibility of the "Structured Problem Analysis of Raising kids aged 36 months" (SPARK36), a broad-scope structured interview to facilitate such consultations. DESIGN AND METHODS: A feasibility study was conducted with SHS nurses across Flanders, to determine need for this instrument, acceptability and practical feasibility of SPARK36 with both parents and professionals. Nurses were trained to use the instrument. Mixed methods (i.e., questionnaires for both parents and nurses, and a focus group interview with nurses) were used to evaluate the feasibility of using SPARK36. RESULTS: Parents were satisfied (97.0%) with what was discussed during the consultation and with the consultation's structure (98.8%). After the training, all 20 nurses felt strengthened in performing the consultation and in making a risk assessment. The interview was feasible in 20-30 min. During 561 interviews nurses gave parenting support in 88.2% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: SPARK36 is acceptable, practically feasible for parents and nurses, and it meets needs of both parties. The instrument supports nurses during their consultation. More research is needed to evaluate the instrument and to prepare its implementation in daily practice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: SPARK36 is a promising instrument for nurse-led consultations in the SHS setting.

School-Age Hearing Screening Based on Speech-in-Noise Perception Using the Digit Triplet Test.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to investigate the large-scale applicability of the Digit Triplet test (DTT) for school-age hearing screening in fifth grade elementary (5E) (9 to 12 years old) and third grade secondary (3S) (13 to 16 years old) school children. The reliability of the test is investigated as well as whether pass/fail criteria need to be corrected for training and/or age, and whether these criteria have to be refined with respect to referral rates and pure-tone audiometry results. DESIGN: Eleven school health service centers participated in the region of Flanders (the Northern part of Belgium). Pure-tone screening tests, which are commonly used for hearing screening in school children, were replaced by the DTT. Initial pass/fail criteria were determined. Children with speech reception thresholds (SRT) of -7.2 dB signal to noise ratio (SNR) (5E) and -8.3 dB SNR (3S) or worse were referred for an audiogram and follow-up. In total, n = 3412 (5E) and n = 3617 (3S) children participated. RESULTS: Population SRTs (±2 SD) were -9.8 (±1.8) dB SNR (5E) and -10.5 (±1.6) dB SNR (3S), and do not need correction for training and/or age. Whereas grade-specific pass/fail criteria are more appropriate, a linear regression analysis showed an improvement of 0.2 dB per year of the SRT until late adolescence. SRTs could be estimated with a within-measurement reliability of 0.6 dB. Test duration was also grade-dependent, and was 6 min 50 sec (SD = 61 sec) (5E) and 5 min 45 sec (SD = 49 sec) (3S) on average for both ears. The SRT, test reliability, and test duration were comparable across centers. With initial cut-off values, 2.9% (5E) and 3.5% (3S) of children were referred. Based on audiograms of n = 39 (5E) and n = 59 (3S) children, the diagnostic accuracy of the DTT was assessed. A peripheral hearing loss was detected in 31% (5E) and 53% (3S) of the referred children. Hearing losses found were mild. Less strict pass/fail criteria increased the diagnostic accuracy. Optimal pass/fail criteria were determined at -6.5 dB SNR (5E) and -8.1 dB SNR (3S). With these criteria, referral rates dropped to 1.3% (5E) and 2.4% (3S). CONCLUSIONS: The DTT has been implemented as the new hearing screening methodology in the Flemish school-age hearing screening program. Based on the results of this study, pass/fail criteria were determined and optimized to be used for systematic hearing screening of 5E and 3S school children. Furthermore, this study provides reference values for the DTT in children 9 to 16 years of age. Reliable SRTs can be obtained with the test, allowing accurate monitoring of hearing over time. This is important in the context of a screening guideline, which aims to identify children with noise-induced hearing loss. Validation of the screening result should go beyond taking an audiogram, as a peripheral hearing impairment cannot always be found in children with a failed test.