Growth Monitoring: A Survey of Current Practices of Primary Care Paediatricians in Europe

Abstract

ObjectiveWe aimed to study current practices in growth monitoring by European primary care paediatricians and to explore their perceived needs in this field.MethodsWe developed a cross-sectional, anonymous on-line survey and contacted primary care paediatricians listed in national directories in the 18 European countries with a confederation of primary care paediatricians. Paediatricians participated in the survey between April and September 2011.ResultsOf the 1,198 paediatricians from 11 European countries (response rate 13%) who participated, 29% used the 2006 World Health Organization Multicentre Growth Reference Study growth charts, 69% used national growth charts; 61% used software to draw growth charts and 79% did not use a formal algorithm to detect abnormal growth on growth charts. Among the 21% of paediatricians who used algorithms, many used non-algorithmic simple thresholds for height and weight and none used the algorithms published in the international literature. In all, 69% of paediatricians declared that a validated algorithm to monitor growth would be useful in daily practice. We found important between-country variations.ConclusionThe varied growth-monitoring practices declared by primary care paediatricians reveals the need for standardization and evidence-based algorithms to define abnormal growth and the development of software that would use such algorithms.

Early Detection, Referral, Investigation, and Diagnosis of Children with Growth Disorders

“…As stated above, programmes for growth monitoring in primary care vary widely, even within the developed world [38]. Here, we compare three programmes and assess their performances in terms of efficacy of early diagnosis of abnormal growth.…”

Application of the Dutch, Finnish and British Screening Guidelines in a Cohort of Children with Growth Failure

“…In several countries, a system of growth monitoring is established in primary health care, with referral to secondary and/or tertiary care of patients suspected for a pathological cause [1]. Criteria for growth monitoring and diagnostic workup should ideally have a high sensitivity and specificity.…”

Survey highlights important discrepancies between definitions of paediatric abnormal growth taught to medical students in 23 European countries

“…The potential cause of this suboptimal monitoring could be the lack of standardisation in the definition of abnormal growth. Indeed, we have shown, as have others, that there are important variations in growth‐monitoring practices in Europe, both at primary care and hospital levels, notably for the auxological parameters and thresholds used to define abnormal growth . Seven structured definitions have been proposed for abnormal growth .…”