Rating early child development outcome measurement tools for routine health programme use
Date Issued
2019-01-01
Author(s)
Boggs, Dorothy
Milner, Kate M.
Chandna, Jaya
Black, Maureen
Cavallera, Vanessa
Dua, Tarun
Kc, Ashish
Grantham-McGregor, Sally
Hamadani, Jena
Hughes, Rob
Manji, Karim
McCoy, Dana Charles
Tann, Cally
Lawn, Joy E.
DOI
10.1136/archdischild-2018-315431
Abstract
Identification of children at risk of developmental delay and/or impairment requires valid measurement of early child development (ECD). We systematically assess ECD measurement tools for accuracy and feasibility for use in routine services in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC).; Building on World Bank and peer-reviewed literature reviews, we identified available ECD measurement tools for children aged 0-3 years used in ≥1 LMIC and matrixed these according to; when; (child age) and; what; (ECD domains) they measure at population or individual level. Tools measuring <2 years and covering ≥3 developmental domains, including cognition, were rated for accuracy and feasibility criteria using a rating approach derived from Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations.; 61 tools were initially identified, 8% (n=5) population-level and 92% (n=56) individual-level screening or ability tests. Of these, 27 tools covering ≥3 domains beginning <2 years of age were selected for rating accuracy and feasibility. Recently developed population-level tools (n=2) rated highly overall, particularly in reliability, cultural adaptability, administration time and geographical uptake. Individual-level tool (n=25) ratings were variable, generally highest for reliability and lowest for accessibility, training, clinical relevance and geographical uptake.; Although multiple measurement tools exist, few are designed for multidomain ECD measurement in young children, especially in LMIC. No available tools rated strongly across; all; accuracy and feasibility criteria with accessibility, training requirements, clinical relevance and geographical uptake being poor for most tools. Further research is recommended to explore this gap in fit-for-purpose tools to monitor ECD in routine LMIC health services.
File(s)![Thumbnail Image]()
Loading...
Name
S22.full.pdf
Size
4.51 MB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum
(MD5):4483818b12bed7d0fc81b0ad34051dce