4.5 Review

A systematic review of the prevalence of parental concerns measured by the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) indicating developmental risk

期刊

BMC PEDIATRICS
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-14-231

关键词

Prevalence; Parental concerns; Parents Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS); Risk factors; Developmental risk; Child health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Parental concerns about their children's development can be used as an indicator of developmental risk. We undertook a systematic review of the prevalence of parents' concerns as an indicator of developmental risk, measured by the Parents' Evaluation of Developmental Status (PEDS) and associated risk factors. Methods: Electronic databases, bibliographies and websites were searched and experts contacted. Studies were screened for eligibility and study characteristics were extracted independently by two authors. A summary estimate for prevalence was derived. Meta-regression examined the impact of study characteristics and quality. Meta-analysis was used to derive pooled estimates of the impact of biological and psychosocial risk factors on the odds of parental concerns indicating high developmental risk. Results: Thirty seven studies were identified with a total of 210,242 subjects. Overall 13.8% (95% CI 10.9-16.8%) of parents had concerns indicating their child was at high developmental risk and 19.8% (95% CI 16.7-22.9%) had concerns indicating their child was at moderate developmental risk. Male gender, low birth weight, poor/fair child health rating, poor maternal mental health, lower socioeconomic status (SES), minority ethnicity, not being read to, a lack of access to health care and not having health insurance were significantly associated with parental concerns indicating a high developmental risk. Conclusions: The prevalence of parental concerns measured with the PEDS indicating developmental risk is substantial. There is increased prevalence associated with biological and psychosocial adversity.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据