CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Patient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFamily and Disability Support ResearchLanguage Development and Disorders

Sugar- coaters and straight talkers: communicating about developmental delays in primary care

Open access
Sices, Laura, Egbert, Lucia, Mercer, Mary Beth·2009·Pediatrics
DOI 10.1542/peds.2009-0286PMC PMC2763135
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The goals were to investigate parents' and early intervention (EI) specialists' beliefs and experiences regarding discussing child development in primary care and to identify communication barriers and opportunities. METHODS: Focus groups were held with (1) mothers of young children with typical development, (2) mothers of young children who received EI services, and (3) EI specialists. Seven groups (N = 46 participants) were conducted in the greater Cleveland, Ohio, area. Meetings were audio-recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed, to identify themes. RESULTS: Most mothers reported a preference for a nonalarmist style of communication when developmental delays are suspected. In contrast, some mothers preferred a more direct style, including the use of labels to help them understand their child's development. The importance of preparation to accept information about developmental delays emerged as a theme in all groups. Elements contributing to preparedness included information about expected developmental skills, suggestions for promoting skills, and a specific time frame for follow-up evaluation. Mothers of children with disabilities perceived that early reassurance of normalcy by providers in response to their concerns led to self-doubt and increased difficulty accepting the diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Mothers and EI specialists have clear ideas about factors that promote or impede communication regarding child development. This information can inform primary care providers' approaches to monitoring and screening the development of young children and to communicating with parents regarding suspected developmental delays.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2009-0286

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The CDC checklists support developmental surveillance and other important components of the early identification process by pediatricians and other early childhood professionals, including developmental promotion, parent education and engagement, communication of developmental progress and concerns, and developmental screening.

    “The CDC checklists support developmental surveillance and other important components of the early identification process by pediatricians and other ECPs, including developmental promotion, parent education and engagement, communication of developmental progress and concerns, and developmental screening.7,5,9,72–75”

    From Evidence-Informed Milestones for Developmental Surveillance Tools (2022) · cites this paper as [73]

    The ‘What This Study Adds’ and Discussion sections say that developmental surveillance and screening can prompt conversations with parents and help identify delays earlier; the Results also recount a provider reviewing a checklist. But the paper does not identify that checklist as a CDC checklist or establish that CDC checklists support the full range of activities listed, including developmental promotion and parent engagement. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [12]Chisholm CA Pappas DJ Sharp MC Communicating bad news Obstet Gynecol 1997 90 4 637 639 9380331
  2. [37]Glascoe FP Parents’ Evaluation of Developmental Status 1997 Ellsworth & Vandermeer Press Nashville, TN

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sices, L., Egbert, L., & Mercer, M. B.
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • Cleveland Clinic (US)
ORCID
Mercer, Mary Beth
Venue
Pediatrics
Publisher
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
Published
2009-10-01
Volume
124
Issue
4
Pages
e705-e713
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
DOI
10.1542/peds.2009-0286
PMC
PMC2763135
OpenAlex
W2085376544
Cited by
33
References
39
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Case Western Reserve University
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (K23 HD04773, K23HD047713)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family and Disability Support Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
Keywords
developmental delay, parent-provider communication, primary care, maternal beliefs, communication styles, diagnostic labeling, diagnosis acceptance, developmental screening, child development monitoring, communication barriers
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Developmental Disabilities, Child, Preschool, Communication, Communication Barriers, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Mother-Child Relations, Primary Health Care, Probability, Professional-Family Relations, Surveys and Questionnaires, Truth Disclosure, United States, Focus Groups, Early Intervention, Educational

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review