Screening young children for neurodevelopmental differences in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) present in approximately 10% of children globally. Awareness of NDDs in sub-Saharan Africa is relatively low and little is known about prevalence. This scoping review aims to understand screening of NDDs in young children in sub-Saharan Africa, which NDDs are screened for, and who administers screening. METHODS: The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR standards for scoping reviews. PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS and PsycInfo were searched according to a defined search strategy with relevant keywords. Studies published in English between 2012 and 2023, where children aged ≥ 2 to < 9 years years, residing in sub-Saharan Africa, were screened for a form of NDD, were included. Due to the flexible nature of a scoping review and its focus on under-explored topics, there were no restrictions on study design. Titles and abstracts were reviewed for selection independently by three researchers and full text articles independently by two researchers. Quality assessment was conducted using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: After duplicate removal and title and abstract screening, 546 abstracts were retained for full text review. Twelve publications met the inclusion criteria. These were from South Africa (n = 6), Kenya (n = 3), Uganda (n = 2) and Malawi (n = 1). Only two explicitly screened for multiple NDDs. There was considerable heterogeneity in NDD conceptualisation, study design, screener design, populations of children screened, and persons performing the screening – limiting the possibility for valid comparative analysis. Quality assessment of methodologies yielded ratings ranging from “Very good” to “Unsatisfactory” (cross-sectional studies) and “Good” to “Fair” (cohort- and case-control studies). CONCLUSION: There are very few published studies on NDD screening in young children in sub-Saharan Africa. Further research examining simple, contextually appropriate screening for a wide range of NDDs amongst this group, is needed. This may inform future screening programmes, policy development and clinical practice throughout the region.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".