2012
DOI: 10.1007/s00127-012-0564-z
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Can standardized diagnostic assessment be a useful adjunct to clinical assessment in child mental health services? A randomized controlled trial of disclosure of the Development and Well-Being Assessment to practitioners

Abstract: The results may be explained by the inadequacy of the DAWBA, lack of statistical power to detect any effects that were present or a reluctance of some practitioners to use the DAWBA in their assessment. Future research might benefit from exploring the use of the DAWBA or similar assessments as a referral rather than an assessment tool, and exploring how practitioners and parents experience and use the DAWBA and what training might optimise the utility of the DAWBA to clinical practice.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
42
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
2
42
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These less severe difficulties may contribute to diagnostic uncertainty and suggest subclinical levels of problems that might never-the-less contribute to impairment and to diagnostic confusion. As reported above, two trials of standardised assessment have been conducted to date [31, 33], which may not have been adequately powered to detect a difference in the detection of ASCs between the trial conditions (disclosure or not of the assessment to the clinical team). Our findings suggest that disagreement was mainly between the research diagnosis and practitioner reports of a possible ASC, with a remarkable level of fluctuation in practitioner-reported diagnoses over time.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…These less severe difficulties may contribute to diagnostic uncertainty and suggest subclinical levels of problems that might never-the-less contribute to impairment and to diagnostic confusion. As reported above, two trials of standardised assessment have been conducted to date [31, 33], which may not have been adequately powered to detect a difference in the detection of ASCs between the trial conditions (disclosure or not of the assessment to the clinical team). Our findings suggest that disagreement was mainly between the research diagnosis and practitioner reports of a possible ASC, with a remarkable level of fluctuation in practitioner-reported diagnoses over time.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As part of a wider randomised control trial (RCT) nested into this cohort study [31], the unrated DAWBA assessments were disclosed to approximately half of the practitioners (43%) before they conducted their first assessment with the child. The DAWBA RCT found no statistically significant effect of disclosure of the DAWBA upon diagnostic agreement between practitioners and the DAWBA, but the levels of agreement found in this secondary analysis will be stratified by DAWBA disclosure to account for the increased level of information available to some practitioners about some children.…”
Section: Clinical Settingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A computerized algorithm provides the probability of a child having any psychiatric disorder based on responses to structured questions, but clinical raters can review the symptoms, damage and qualitative information in parallel to these probabilities in their own assessment [33]. The clinical judgments were made by a child psychiatrist (SP), rater on this study, supervised by another child psychiatrist (BFB), who translated and validated the DAWBA for use in the Brazilian population [11].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Conducting a cognitive assessment needs to be administered by a trained professional, which is costly and time consuming [5]. Using a static questionnaire to gather the data does not allow for the user to ask clarification questions if any of the wording is ambiguous.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%