Brief multidimensional screening tools for young children’s mental health and development for administration by primary care providers: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Many young children with mental health or developmental concerns go unidentified and untreated, underscoring the need for effective screening. Primary care offers unique opportunities for screening, yet rates are low. Primary care providers often cite time constraints, insufficient training, and costs as barriers to screening. Tools designed for administration by primary care providers hold promise for facilitating personalized assessments and improving communication, collaboration, and follow-up between providers and families. To improve early identification and intervention, it is crucial to understand provider-administered screening tools that align with their practical constraints. AIM: To identify and describe the characteristics, limitations, and improvement areas of brief, multidimensional screening for young children's mental health and development, designed for administration by primary care providers. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review according to published guidelines. We searched seven electronic databases and used hand-searching strategies. We sought English-language publications on screening tools (English or French) assessing at least one mental health and one development domain in children up to 6 years, designed for administration by primary care providers in under 20 minutes. Two reviewers assessed the articles' eligibility and then extracted, charted, and summarized relevant data. RESULTS: Three screening tools from six articles were included. The tools were primarily administered by physicians or nurses to children aged 2 weeks to 4 years and required minimal training to use. The tools varied in their domains (4-6), items (10-110), psychometric properties, and scoring methods, but all included indicators of delayed or at-risk children. Article limitations included study recency and lack of data related to implementation and patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This review described the development and evaluation of multidimensional screening tools for young children's mental health and development designed for administration by primary care providers. It found that few tools have been published. This review identifies several knowledge gaps and emphasizes the need for research on the implementation, cost-effectiveness, and comparative performance of screening tools, as well as the development and evaluation of new screening tools that suit providers' needs. Future studies should investigate how these screening tools can improve identification, clinical care, and health outcomes.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».