How to adopt a Personalized approach in preventive Child Health Care? Design of a Mixed Methods Feasibility RCT. (Preprint)

BACKGROUND To adopt Personalized Health Care within preventive Child Health Care, a 360⁰CHILD-profile is developed. On this dashboard, holistic health data are visualized in one image to provide parents/youth and caregivers direct access to a manageable résumé of child’s medical record. Theoretical ordering, conform “International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (Children and Youth version)”, guides thought processes within the relevant context. It is yet unknown if and how this promising tool functions in practice and a variety of feasibility questions must be addressed. OBJECTIVE This paper describes design and methods of a Feasibility RCT, to be performed in the Netherlands (January 2019 - September 2020). RCT’s feasibility (recruitment, response, measure completion, intervention allocation) and 360⁰CHILD-profile’s feasibility (usability, potential effectiveness) will be evaluated. METHODS A pragmatic Mixed Methods design is chosen, starting with an RCT to measure feasibility and health literacy in two parallel groups (1:1). Then, qualitative research will be performed to understand/explain quantitative findings and explore stakeholder’s perspectives on 360⁰CHILD-profile’s potential. Participating CHC-professionals (n≥30) will recruit parents (n≥30) and caregivers (n=±10) of children, who experience problems (age 0-16). Children will only participate if age is above 11 (youth, n=±10). Both groups receive care as usual. Experimental group, additionally, gets access to personalized 360⁰CHILD-profiles. RESULTS Six months after baseline, quantitative outcomes will be measured, analysed (descriptive feasibility statistics and preliminary between group difference) and used to purposively sample for semi-structured interviews. CONCLUSIONS Study results will provide knowledge for building theory on the CHILD-profile and designing future (effect) studies. CLINICALTRIAL Trial registration: NTR 6909; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/6731

Download Full-text

Identification and Management of Psychosocial Problems by Preventive Child Health Care

Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine ◽

10.1001/archpedi.155.4.462 ◽

2001 ◽

Vol 155 (4) ◽

pp. 462 ◽

Cited By ~ 85

Author(s):

Emily Brugman ◽

Sijmen A. Reijneveld ◽

Frank C. Verhulst ◽

S. Pauline Verloove-Vanhorick

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Child Health ◽

Psychosocial Problems ◽

Child Health Care ◽

Preventive Child Health Care

Download Full-text

A comparison of four scoring methods based on the parent-rated Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire as used in the Dutch preventive child health care system

BMC Public Health ◽

10.1186/1471-2458-8-106 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 8 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 60

Author(s):

Mathilde R Crone ◽

Anton GC Vogels ◽

Femke Hoekstra ◽

Philip DA Treffers ◽

Sijmen A Reijneveld

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Child Health ◽

Health Care System ◽

Strengths And Difficulties Questionnaire ◽

Child Health Care ◽

Scoring Methods ◽

Preventive Child Health Care ◽

Strengths And Difficulties ◽

Care System

Download Full-text

First Step in Obtaining Child Health Care: Selecting a Physician

PEDIATRICS ◽

10.1542/peds.81.3.333 ◽

1988 ◽

Vol 81 (3) ◽

pp. 333-338

Author(s):

Gerald B. Hickson ◽

David W. Stewart ◽

William A. Altemeier ◽

James M. Perrin

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Child Health ◽

General Practitioners ◽

Health Care Services ◽

Child Health Care ◽

Sources Of Information ◽

Patient Decision Making ◽

Care Services ◽

Patient Decision ◽

Study Results

To investigate the process by which families identified and selected their children's current physicians, a close-ended questionnaire was administered to 750 families in a mail panel. Of 630 responses (84.0%), 244 had children in the home; 229 (93.9%) identified a regular and current physician for their youngest child. However, parents did not spend much time or energy selecting a physician and rarely explored medical expertise in their decisions. Families averaged 1.2 sources of information consulted per decision; few considered more than two physician choices and infrequently considered alternative types of doctors (pediatricians v family or general practitioners). selection priorities ranked in order of importance concerned parents' perceptions of their doctors' communication skills, accessibility, and quality as determined by recommendations of friends or physicians. Parents appeared less concerned with issues of cost and convenience. Families selecting pediatricians differed from those selecting family and general practitioners in sources of information used and selection priorities. The survey also identified 84 families who had changed or seriously considered changing the physician who was caring for their youngest child. The most frequent dissatisfaction was the perception that an illness was not being managed adequately, followed by believing that the doctor or staff were rude or unconcerned. Families unhappy with pediatricians expressed different reasons from those unhappy with family or general practitioners. The study results provide insight about the first step in obtaining child health care services, a relatively unexplored area of patient decision making.

Download Full-text

Costs and effects of conventional vision screening and photoscreening in the Dutch preventive child health care system

European Journal of Public Health ◽

10.1093/eurpub/ckaa098 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Catharina P B Van der Ploeg ◽

Manon Grevinga ◽

Iris Eekhout ◽

Eline Vlasblom ◽

Caren I Lanting ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Child Health ◽

Population Based ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Child Health Care ◽

Test Duration ◽

Vision Screening ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Number Of Children ◽

Preventive Child Health Care

Abstract Background Little is known about costs and effects of vision screening strategies to detect amblyopia. Aim of this study was to compare costs and effects of conventional (optotype) vision screening, photoscreening or a combination in children aged 3–6 years. Methods Population-based, cross-sectional study in preventive child health care in The Hague. Children aged 3 years (3y), 3 years and 9 months (3y9m) or 5–6 years (5/6y) received the conventional chart vision screening and a test with a photoscreener (Plusoptix S12C). Costs were based on test duration and additional costs for devices and diagnostic work-up. Results Two thousand, one hundred and forty-four children were included. The estimated costs per child screened were €17.44, €20.37 and €6.90 for conventional vision screening at 3y, 3y9m and 5/6y, respectively. For photoscreening, these estimates were €6.61, €7.52 and €9.40 and for photoscreening followed by vision screening if the result was unclear (combination) €9.32 (3y) and €9.33 (3y9m). The number of children detected with amblyopia by age were 9, 14 and 5 (conventional screening), 6, 13 and 3 (photoscreening) and 10 (3y) and 15 (3y9m) (combination), respectively. The estimated costs per child diagnosed with amblyopia were €1500, €1050 and €860 for conventional vision screening, €860, €420 and €1940 for photoscreening and €730 (3y) and €450 (3y9m) for the combination. Conclusions Combining photoscreening with vision screening seems promising to detect amblyopia in children aged 3y/3y9m, whereas conventional screening seems preferable at 5/6y. As the number of study children with amblyopia is small, further research on the effects of these screening alternatives in detecting children with amblyopia is recommended.

Download Full-text