RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Early intervention (EI) programs provide services to children with developmental conditions, regardless of whether such children have an underlying medical diagnosis. We aim to (1) Determine the proportion of general pediatricians who believe an established diagnosis is important when considering EI referral; and (2) Determine whether this perception is associated with lower reported likelihood of referral. METHODS: Mailed survey to random sample of pediatricians. We used multivariable logistic regression to study the association between the perception that a medical diagnosis is important when referring to EI, and the reported likelihood of EI referral for children with common developmental conditions. RESULTS: Response rate was 55% (894 of 1617). A total of 64% of respondents considered an established diagnosis important for EI referral. Likelihood of referral for delayed speech was lower among those who considered a diagnosis important than among those who did not (77% vs 87%; P = .02). Similar patterns held for global delay (91% vs 97%; P = .02), loss of developmental milestones (80% vs 88%; P = .03), and parental concern for inappropriate development (45% vs 60%; P = .002). In multivariable models, perception of the importance of an established diagnosis was associated with lower likelihood of referral for children with delayed speech (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26-0.87) and for parental concern for inappropriate development (aOR 0.46; 95% CI 0.30-0.72). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of general pediatricians believe that an established diagnosis is important when considering EI referral. This perception is associated with decreased reported referral for children with speech delay and those whose parents express concern for inappropriate development.
Assuntos
Deficiências do Desenvolvimento/diagnóstico , Intervenção Educacional Precoce , Encaminhamento e Consulta/normas , Atitude do Pessoal de Saúde , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Intervalos de Confiança , Atenção à Saúde , Crianças com Deficiência , Feminino , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Humanos , Lactente , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Programas de Rastreamento/normas , Programas de Rastreamento/tendências , Análise Multivariada , Razão de Chances , Pediatria/normas , Pediatria/tendências , Padrões de Prática Médica , Encaminhamento e Consulta/tendências , Medição de Risco , Sensibilidade e Especificidade , Inquéritos e Questionários , Estados UnidosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In 2001, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) adopted a policy that all infants and young children should be screened for developmental delays at regular intervals. The policy statement promoted the use of valid reliable instruments. It is unknown, however, what proportion of pediatricians follow this recommendation and whether such a practice is associated with improved identification of children with developmental difficulties. OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of developmental screening tests among board-certified pediatricians practicing general pediatrics and to determine the association between standardized screening and the self-reported identification of children with developmental difficulties. METHODS: We mailed a survey to a random sample of AAP members. We used multivariate logistic/linearregression analyses to determine the association between standardized screening and the self-reported identification of children with developmental disabilities. RESULTS: Of the 1617 surveys mailed, 894 were returned, for a response rate of 55%. Of the respondents, 646 practiced general pediatrics and were included in the analysis. Seventy-one percent of those pediatricians indicated that they almost always used clinical assessment without an accompanying screening instrument to identify children with developmental delays. Only 23% indicated that they used a standardized screening instrument. The most commonly used instrument was the Denver II. Logistic regression modeling demonstrated odds ratios between 1.71 and 1.90 for a >10% rate of identification of developmental problems among patients of pediatricians reporting standardized screening. Each adjusted odds ratio bordered on statistical significance. Linear-regression models estimating the difference in mean proportions of children identified with developmental problems across screening groups failed to show a statistically or clinically significant difference in physician-reported identification rates. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that, despite the AAP policy and national efforts to improve developmental screening in the primary care setting, few pediatricians use effective means to screen their patients for developmental problems. It is uncertain whether standardized screening, as it is practiced currently, is associated with an increase in the self-reported identification of children with developmental disabilities.