Abstract
Screening programs for various medical and psychological difficulties are becoming more prevalent. Their appeal is obvious: problems that are caught early should be easier to treat and do not lead to secondary and tertiary sequelae. However, there are a number of problems that may be associated with mass screening. These include the psychometric properties of the tests themselves, which may not have adequate sensitivity and specificity. Second, even if the tests do meet minimal criteria for validity, the low prevalence of many disorders means that the majority of cases that are identified will actually be false positives. This in turn leads to additional financial costs, because of the added work load and the necessity of determining who are not cases as well as psychological costs due to labeling. The final difficulty is that the effectiveness of the interventions needs to be evidence-based. Recommendations are made regarding when screening programs should be implemented.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Green M, Palfrey J, editors. Bright futures: guidelines for health supervision of infants, children and adolescent. 2nd ed. Arlington, VA: National Center for Education in Maternal and Child. Health; 2000.
National Association of School Nurses. Postural screening guidelines for school nurses. Scarborough, ME: National Association of School Nurses; 1995.
Nipissing District Developmental Screen. Nipissing District Developmental Screen Intellectual Property Association; 2000. North Bay: ndds. Available: www.ndds.ca. Accessed 15 Feb 2016.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Mass screening: when does it make sense? Commun Oncol. 2010;7:93–5. doi:10.1016/S1548-5315(11)70562-9.
Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
Veldhuizen S, Clinton J, Rodriguez C, Wade TJ, Cairney J. Concurrent validity of the ages and stages and Bayley developmental scales in a general population. Acad Pediatr. 2015;15:231–7. doi:10.1016/j.acap.2014.08.002.
Baines CJ, Miller AB, Wall C, McFarlane DV, Simor IS, Jong R, Shapiro BJ, Audet L, Petitclerc M, Ouimet-Oliva D. Sensitivity and specificity of first screen mammography in the Canadian National Breast Screening Study: a preliminary report from five centers. Radiology. 1986;160:295–8. doi:10.1148/radiology.160.2.3523590.
Oeffinger KC, Fontham ETH, Etzioni R, Herzig A, Michaelson JS, Shih YCT, et al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;14:1599–614. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12783.
Siu AL. Screening for autism spectrum disorder in young children: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2016;315:691–6. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.0018.
Cantwell DP, Baker L. Stability and natural history of DSM-III childhood diagnoses. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1999;28:691–700. doi:10.1097/00004583-198909000-00009.
Zahl PH, Mæhlen J, Welch G. The natural history of invasive breast cancers detected by screening mammography. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:2311–6. doi:10.1001/archinte.168.21.2311.
Gates TJ. Screening for cancer: evaluating the evidence. Am Fam Physician. 2001;63:513–23.
Ahn HS, Kim HJ, Welch G. Korea’s thyroid-cancer “epidemic”—screening and overdiagnosis. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1765–7. doi:10.1056/NEJM p1409841.
Cadman D, Chambers LW, Walter SD, Ferguson R, Johnson N, McNamee MA. Evaluation of public health preschool child developmental screening: the process and outcomes of a community program. Am J Public Health. 1987;77:45–51.
Strandberg TE, Salomaa VV, Naukkarinen VA, Vanhanen HT, Sarna SJ, Miettinen TA, et al. Long-term mortality after 5-year multifactorial primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases in middle-aged men. JAMA. 1991;266:1225–9.
Bergman AB, Stamm SJ. The morbidity of cardiac nondisease in schoolchildren. N Engl J Med. 1967;276:1008–13.
Cuckle HS, Ward NJ. Principles of screening. In: Wald NJ, Leck I, editors. Antenatal and prenatal screening. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1984.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
David L. Streiner declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Screening
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Streiner, D.L. Issues in Screening for Developmental Delay or Disorders. Curr Dev Disord Rep 3, 180–183 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-016-0089-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-016-0089-3