The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Learn the Signs. Act Early. program, funded the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to convene an expert working group to revise its developmental surveillance checklists. The goals of the group were to identify evidence-informed milestones to include in CDC checklists, clarify when most children can be expected to reach a milestone (to discourage a wait-and-see approach), and support clinical judgment regarding screening between recommended ages. Subject matter experts identified by the AAP established 11 criteria for CDC milestone checklists, including using milestones most children (≥75%) would be expected to achieve by specific health supervision visit ages and those that are easily observed in natural settings. A database of normative data for individual milestones, common screening and evaluation tools, and published clinical opinion was created to inform revisions. Application of the criteria established by the AAP working group and adding milestones for the 15- and 30-month health supervision visits resulted in a 26.4% reduction and 40.9% replacement of previous CDC milestones. One third of the retained milestones were transferred to different ages; 67.7% of those transferred were moved to older ages. Approximately 80% of the final milestones had normative data from ≥1 sources. Social-emotional and cognitive milestones had the least normative data. These criteria and revised checklists can be used to support developmental surveillance, clinical judgment regarding additional developmental screening, and research in developmental surveillance processes. Gaps in developmental data were identified particularly for social-emotional and cognitive milestones.
Background Widely recommended developmental surveillance methods include developmental monitoring (DM) and development screening (DS). Much research has been done on DS, but very little research has compared the effectiveness of DM and DS together. Objectives To investigate the relationship between DM and DS in Part C early intervention (EI) service receipt. Methods Authors used data from the 2007/2008 and 2011/2012 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH). Authors report the prevalence of children aged 10 months to 3 years who received (a) DM only, (b) DS only, (c) both DM and DS, and (c) no DM or DS across survey years. Authors compare the odds of EI receipt across these groups. Results During both periods, estimated EI receipt prevalence was higher for children receiving both DM and DS (8.38% in 2007/2008; 6.47% in 2011/2012) compared to children receiving no DM or DS (1.31% in 2007/2008; 1.92% in 2011/2012), DM alone (2.74% in 2007/2008; 2.70% in 2011/2012), or DS alone (3.59% in 2007/2008; 3.09% in 2011/2012) (for both time frames, p < .05). From 2007/2008 to 2011/2012, the proportion of children receiving DS only and both DM and DS increased, while children receiving DM only and no DM or DS decreased. Conclusions Children receiving DM and DS together were more likely to receive EI compared to children receiving DM alone, DS alone, or neither DM nor DS. These findings support the AAP recommendations indicating that DM and DS are complementary strategies for improving early identification and linkage to EI for young children.
Benzyl isothiocyanate (BITC) was extracted from mature papaya (Carica papayaL.) seeds and applied to imbibed velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrastiMedic. ♯3ABUTH) seeds. Complete inhibition of germination occurred at a concentration of 6 × 10-4M BITC, and only 28% (compared to controls) of the seeds germinated after 4 days exposure to the 4 × 10-4M treatment. Corn (Zea maysL. ‘DeKalb XL-66′) was unaffected even at higher concentrations; however, 72% of imbibed soybeans [Glycine max(L.) Merr. ‘Tiger’] germinated in 6 × 10-4M BITC. When this natural inhibitor was applied to etiolated velvetleaf seedlings at 4 × 10-4M, 100% died in 2 days.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.