Skip Navigation

Strengthen the Evidence for Maternal and Child Health Programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 13 (13 total).

Gray C, Fox K,Williamson ME. Improving Health Outcomes for Children (IHOC): First STEPS II Initiative: Improving Developmental, Autism, and Lead Screening for Children: Final Evaluation. Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine Muskie School of Public Service; 2013. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Expert Support (Provider), Modified Billing Practices, Screening Tool Implementation Training, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Chart Audits (Provider), Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, Engagement with Payers, STATE, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice)
Intervention Description: This report evaluates the impact of Phase II of Maine's First STEPS initiative
Conclusion: The authors summarize lessons learned in implementing changes in practices and challenges in using CHIPRA and IHOC developmental, autism, and lead screening measures at the practice-level to inform quality improvement.
Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Pediatric and family practices serving children with MaineCoverage
Target Audience: Children ages 6 to 35 months
Data Source: Child medical record; MaineCare paid claims
Sample Size: Unknown number of chart reviews from 9 practice sites completing follow-up
Age Range: Not specified

Barry S, Paul K, Aakre K, Drake-Buhr S, Willis R. Final Report: Developmental and Autism Screening in Primary Care. Burlington, VT: Vermont Child Health Improvement Program; 2012. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Participation Incentives, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Expert Support (Provider), Modified Billing Practices, Data Collection Training for Staff, Screening Tool Implementation Training, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Chart Audits (Provider), Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice), Engagement with Payers, STATE, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS
Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Pediatric and family medicine practices in Vermont
Target Audience: Children up to age 3
Data Source: Child medical record; ProPHDS Survey
Sample Size: Chart audits at 37 baseline and 35 follow-up sites (n=30 per site) Baseline charts (n=1381) - Children 19-23 months (n=697) - Children 31-35 months (n=684) Follow-up charts (n=1301) - Children 19-23 months (n=646) - Children 31-35 months (n=655)
Age Range: Not specified

Allen SG, Berry AD, Brewster JA, Chalasani RK, Mack PK. Enhancing developmentally oriented primary care: an Illinois initiative to increase developmental screening in medical homes. Pediatrics. 2010;126 Suppl 3:S160-164. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider)
Intervention Description: To increase primary care providers' use of validated tools for developmental, social/emotional, maternal depression, and domestic violence screening and to increase early awareness of autism symptoms during pediatric well-child visits in children aged 0 to 3 years.
Conclusion: The Enhancing Developmentally Oriented Primary Care (EDOPC) project enhanced confidence and intent to screen among a large group of Illinois primary health care providers. Among a sample of primary care sites at which chart reviews were conducted, the EDOPC project increased developmental screening rates to the target of 85% of patients at most sites and increased social/emotional screening rates to the same target rate in nearly half of the participating practices.
Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Primary care medical homes (federally qualified health centers, residency training programs, private practices) primarily in Chicago, Illinois, metropolitan area
Target Audience: Children ages 4 to 24 months
Data Source: Child medical record
Sample Size: Chart audits at 16 sites (n=25 per site)
Age Range: Not specified

Bauer SC, Smith PJ, Chien AT, Berry AD, Msall ME. Educating pediatric residents about development and social-emotional health. Infants Young Child. 2009;22(4):309-320. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider)
Intervention Description: We modified the Enhancing Developmentally Oriented Primary Care (EDOPC) program to provide a formal curriculum to pediatric residents serving children in distressed neighborhoods.
Conclusion: Chart audits 1 year after the intervention demonstrated increased use of screening tools and more referrals to community services. This article will discuss lessons about facilitators and barriers to teaching residents about vulnerable preschool children.
Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: University of Chicago Pediatric Residency Program in Chicago, Illinois
Target Audience: Children ages 6 to 24 months
Data Source: Child medical record
Sample Size: Chart audits - Baseline (n=27 of 50 selected) - Follow-up 1: (n=61 of 100 selected) - Follow-up 2: (n=82 of 100 selected) - Follow-up 3: (n=94 of 100 selected) - Follow-up 4: (n=74 of 100 selected)
Age Range: Not specified

Earls MF, Hay SS. Setting the stage for success: implementation of developmental and behavioral screening and surveillance in primary care practice--the North Carolina Assuring Better Child Health and Development (ABCD) Project. Pediatrics. 2006;118(1):e183-188. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Participation Incentives, Modified Billing Practices, Data Collection Training for Staff, Screening Tool Implementation Training, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Chart Audits (Provider), Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice), Engagement with Payers, STATE, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS
Intervention Description: Early identification of children with developmental and behavioral delays is important in primary care practice, and well-child visits provide an ideal opportunity to engage parents and perform periodic screening. Integration of this activity into office process and flow is necessary for making screening a routine and consistent part of primary care practice.
Conclusion: Although there are features of the project that are unique to North Carolina, there are also elements that are transferable to any practice or state interested in integrating child development services into the medical home.
Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Partnership for Health Management, a network within Community Care of North Carolina
Target Audience: Children ages 6 to 60 months receiving Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment services
Data Source: Child medical record
Sample Size: Unknown number of charts – screening rates tracked in 2 counties (>20,000 screens by 2004)
Age Range: Not specified

Lannon CM, Flower K, Duncan P, Moore KS, Stuart J, Bassewitz J. The Bright Futures Training Intervention Project: implementing systems to support preventive and developmental services in practice. Pediatrics. 2008;122(1):e163-171. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Data Collection Training for Staff, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Chart Audits (Provider), Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, STATE, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice)
Intervention Description: The objectives of this study were to assess the feasibility of implementing a bundle of strategies to facilitate the use of Bright Futures recommendations and to evaluate the effectiveness of a modified learning collaborative in improving preventive and developmental care.
Conclusion: This project demonstrated the feasibility of implementing specific strategies for improving preventive and developmental care for young children in a wide variety of practices. It also confirmed the usefulness of a modified learning collaborative in achieving these results. This model may be useful for disseminating office system improvements to other settings that provide care for young children.
Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Primary care practices (15 at baseline, 8 at follow- up) throughout the US (9 states total), with most in the Midwest
Target Audience: Children from birth through 21 years of age
Data Source: Child medical record
Sample Size: Unknown number of chart audits from 8 practice sites completing follow-up
Age Range: Not specified

Malik F, Booker JM, Brown S, McClain C, McGrath J. Improving developmental screening among pediatricians in New Mexico: findings from the developmental screening initiative. Clin Pediatr. 2014;53(6):531-538. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Participation Incentives, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Data Collection Training for Staff, Chart Audits (Provider), Expert Feedback Using the Plan-Do-Study-Act-Tool, Collaboration with Local Agencies (State), Collaboration with Local Agencies (Health Care Provider/Practice), STATE, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS
Intervention Description: Seven pediatric primary care practices participated in New Mexico's Developmental Screening Initiative in a year-long quality improvement project with the goal of implementing standardized developmental screening tools.
Conclusion: Overall, the use of standardized developmental screening increased from 27% at baseline to 92% at the end of the project.
Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Seven primary care practices in a large urban area and small regional community in New Mexico
Target Audience: Children ages 1 through 60 months
Data Source: Child medical record
Sample Size: Total medical records reviewed at baseline and follow-up (n=1139)
Age Range: Not specified

Schonwald A, Huntington N, Chan E, Risko W, Bridgemohan C. Routine developmental screening implemented in urban primary care settings: more evidence of feasibility and effectiveness. Pediatrics. 2009;123(2):660-668. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Screening Tool Implementation Training
Intervention Description: The purpose of this study was to examine the feasibility and effectiveness of implementation of validated developmental screening by using the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status in 2 urban pediatric practices.
Conclusion: Implementation of validated screening by using the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status was feasible in large, urban settings. Effectiveness was demonstrated via chart review documenting an increased rate of identification of developmental and behavioral concerns. Perceived obstacles, such as the time requirement, should not prevent widespread adoption of screening.
Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Boston Children’s Hospital Primary Care Center (CHPCC) and Joseph Smith Community Health Center in Massachusetts
Target Audience: Children ages 2-3 years (20-40 months) receiving well-child visits
Data Source: Child medical record
Sample Size: Medical charts reviewed6 : - Baseline (n=338) o Children aged 2 years (n=169) o Children aged 3 years (n=169) - Follow-up (n=278) o Children aged 2 years (n=127) o Children aged 3 years (n=151) - Total charts (n=616)
Age Range: Not specified

Honigfeld L, Chandhok L, Spiegelman K. Engaging pediatricians in developmental screening: the effectiveness of academic detailing. J Autism Dev Disord. 2012;42(6):1175-1182. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Chart Audits (Provider)
Intervention Description: Use of formal developmental screening tools in the pediatric medical home improves early identification of children with developmental delays and disorders, including Autism Spectrum Disorders.
Conclusion: These pilot study results indicate the potential of academic detailing as an effective strategy for improving rates of developmental screening.
Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest nonequivalent control group
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Pediatric and family medicine practice (5 intervention and 5 control) sites in Connecticut
Target Audience: Children at 18-month well-child visits
Data Source: Child medical record; Medicaid claims
Sample Size: Baseline Chart Audits3 : - Intervention (n=200) - Control (n=100) Follow-Up Chart Audits: - Intervention (n=196) - Control (n=100)
Age Range: Not specified

Margolis PA, McLearn KT, Earls MF, et al. Assisting primary care practices in using office systems to promote early childhood development. Ambul Pediatr. 2008;8(6):383-387. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Expert Support (Provider), Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Data Collection Training for Staff, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training
Intervention Description: The aim of this study was to use family-centered measures to estimate the effect of a collaborative quality improvement program designed to help practices implement systems to promote early childhood development services.
Conclusion: The learning collaborative was associated with an increase in the number of practice-based systems and tools designed to elicit and address parents' concerns about their child's behavior and development and a modest improvement in parent-reported measures of the quality of care.
Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest nonequivalent control group
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Pediatric and family primary care practices (17 collaborative education, 18 comparison practices) in Vermont and North Carolina
Target Audience: Children ages 0-48 months receiving well-child visits
Data Source: Child medical record
Sample Size: Unknown number of chart audits
Age Range: Not specified

King TM, Tandon SD, Macias MM, et al. Implementing developmental screening and referrals: lessons learned from a national project. Pediatrics. 2010;125(2):350-360. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Participation Incentives, Quality Improvement/Practice-Wide Intervention, Data Collection Training for Staff, Screening Tool Implementation Training, Chart Audits (Provider)
Intervention Description: To assess the degree to which a national sample of pediatric practices could implement American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommendations for developmental screening and referrals, and to identify factors that contributed to the successes and shortcomings of these efforts.
Conclusion: A diverse sample of practices successfully implemented developmental screening as recommended by the AAP. Practices were less successful in placing referrals and tracking those referrals. More attention needs to be paid to the referral process, and many practices may require separate implementation systems for screening and referrals.
Study Design: QE: interrupted timeseries design
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Sixteen pediatric primary care practices from 15 different states
Target Audience: Children ages 8 to 36 months at wellchild visits
Data Source: Child medical record
Sample Size: Chart audits: - Baseline and Follow-Up: (n=30) per practice in July 2006 and March 2007; total charts audited (n= 960) - Intervention period: (n=10) per practice per month for 7 months; total charts audited (n=1,120)
Age Range: Not specified

Kuhlthau K, Jellinek M, White G, Vancleave J, Simons J, Murphy M. Increases in behavioral health screening in pediatric care for Massachusetts Medicaid patients. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011;165(7):660-664. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Participation Incentives, Data Collection Training for Staff
Intervention Description: To explore rates of screening and identification and treatment for behavioral problems using billing data from Massachusetts Medicaid immediately following the start of the state's new court-ordered screening and intervention program.
Conclusion: The data suggest payment and a supported mandate for use of a formal screening tool can substantially increase the identification of children at behavioral health risk. Findings suggest that increased screening may have the desired effect of increasing referrals for mental health services.
Study Design: Observational pretestposttest design
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Massachusetts
Target Audience: Children enrolled in Medicaid
Data Source: Medicaid data prepared for Rosie D. v Romney (Patrick) court case
Sample Size: Well-child visits - Baseline/first quarter 2008 (n=122,494)4 - Follow-up/first quarter 2009 (n=118,573)
Age Range: Not specified

Minkovitz CS, Hughart N, Strobino D, et al. A practice-based intervention to enhance quality of care in the first 3 years of life: the Healthy Steps for Young Children Program. JAMA. 2003;290(23):3081- 3091. Access Abstract

NPM: 6: Developmental Screening
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PATIENT/CONSUMER, Home Visits, PROVIDER/PRACTICE, Provider Training/Education, Educational Material (Provider), Expert Support (Provider), Screening Tool Implementation Training, Office Systems Assessments and Implementation Training, Data Collection Training for Staff
Intervention Description: To determine the impact of the Healthy Steps for Young Children Program on quality of early childhood health care and parenting practices.
Conclusion: Universal, practice-based interventions can enhance quality of care for families of young children and can improve selected parenting practices.
Study Design: RCT and QE: nonequivalent control group
Significant Findings: Yes
Setting: Pediatric practices in 14 states (6 randomization sites: San Diego, CA; Iowa City, IA; Allentown, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; Florence, SC; Amarillo, TX. 9 QE sites: Birmingham, AL/Chapel Hill, NC; Grand Junction, CO/Montrose, CO; Chicago, IL; Kansas City, KS; Boston, MA; Detroit, MI; Kansas City, MO; New York, NY; Houston, TX/Richmond, TX)
Target Audience: Children ages 0-36 months
Data Source: Child medical record
Sample Size: Randomization Sites: - Intervention (n=832) - Control (n=761) - Total (n=1593) Quasi-Experimental Sites: - Intervention (n=1189) - Control (n=955) - Total (n=2144) Total: - All families (n=3737) - Intervention: (n=2021) - Control (n=1716)
Age Range: Not specified

   

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy, $3.5 M. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.