Screening for Risk of Developmental Delay in a primary care setting using the Nippising District Developmental Screen
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract BACKGROUND: Early growth and development in the first five years of life is strongly associated with health outcomes. The Nipissing District Developmental Screen (NDDS) is a free parent-reported screening tool recommended by the Canadian Pediatric Society as one of the tools for developmental screening in children OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of a positive screen for risk of developmental delay in a cohort of healthy children at 18-months and 5 years. To identify risk factors (child, socio-demo-graphic and home environment) associated with a positive screen for risk of developmental delay. DESIGN/METHODS: A cross-sectional study of healthy Canadian children attending 18-months and 5 year well-child visits between June 2008 and February 2015 was conducted through the TARGet Kids! practice-based research network. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors associated with a positive screen for developmental delay. Risk factors of development delay identified from literature were:, male sex, low birth weight, low income, low maternal education, maternal unemployment, non-industrialized immigrant status, single parent family, only child and older maternal age. RESULTS: 1086 children (53% male) at 18 months and 575 children (51% male) at 5 years were included in the final analysis. At 18 months, 341 (31.4%) of children (95% CI, 28.7% - 34.3%) and at 5 years 166 (28.9%) (95% CI, 25.2% -32.8%) were screen positive base on 1+ flag NDDS. At 18 months, children with a low birthweight (OR=1.66; 95% CI 1.22-2.28), with a mother with low education (OR=1.75; 95% CI 1.07-2.85), and those from non-industrialized immigrant families (OR=1.85; 95% CI 1.37-2.49) were associated with an increased odds of a positive screen for developmental delay based on the 1+ NDDS flag. A female child (OR=0.74; 95% CI 0.57-0.96) and an only child (OR=0.76; 95% CI 0.57-0.99) were associated with a decreased odds of a positive screen for developmental delay. At 5 years, factors associated with a positive screen for developmental delay based on the 1+ NDDS flag were: low maternal education (OR 2.24; 95% CI 1.14-4.39) (children had 2.24 times greater odds of a positive screen for developmental delay) and older maternal age (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00-1.09) (every 1-year increase in maternal age, children had 1.05 times greater odds of a positive screen for developmental delay). A female child was associated with a decreased odds of a positive screen for developmental delay (OR=0.66; 95% CI 0.46-0.96) based on the 1+ NDDS flag. CONCLUSION: In a population of healthy urban children the NDDS identified 30% at both 18 month and 5 years at risk for developmental delay. Risk factors for developmental delay were associated with a positive NDDS screen.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».