Cited by 98Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesFamily and Disability Support Research

Screening and referral practices for autism spectrum disorder in primary pediatric care

Monteiro, Sonia A., Dempsey, Jack, Berry, Leandra N., Voigt, Robert G., Goin-Kochel, Robin P.·2019·Pediatrics

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine screening practices for autism spectrum disorder (ASD), subsequent referrals, and diagnostic outcomes within a large network of primary pediatric care practices. METHODS: Rates of ASD screening with the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT) at 18- and 24-month well-child visits were examined among 290 primary care providers within 54 pediatric practices between June 2014 and June 2016. Demographic, referral, and diagnostic data were abstracted from the medical records for all children who failed the M-CHAT (ie, score of ≥3) at either or both visits. RESULTS: Rates of M-CHAT screening were 93% at 18 months and 82% at 24 months. Among 23 514 screens, scores of 648 (3%) were ≥3 (386 at 18 months, 262 at 24 months) among 530 unique children who failed 1 or both screenings. Among screen-failed cases, 18% received a diagnosis of ASD and 59% received ≥1 non-ASD neurodevelopmental disorder diagnosis within the follow-up period. Only 31% of children were referred to a specialist for additional evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: High rates of ASD-specific screening do not necessarily translate to increases in subsequent referrals for ASD evaluation or ASD diagnoses. Low rates of referrals and/or lack of follow-through on referrals appear to contribute to delays in children’s receipt of ASD diagnoses. Additional education of primary care providers regarding the referral process after a failed ASD screening is warranted.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2018-3326

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Referrals for evaluation and intervention for children who screen at higher likelihood of autism remain low.

    “Specifically, referrals for evaluation and intervention for children who screen at higher likelihood of autism remain low (Downs et al., 2019; Monteiro et al., 2019).”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Monteiro, S. A., Dempsey, J., Berry, L. N., Voigt, R. G., & Goin-Kochel, R. P.
Affiliations
  • Baylor College of Medicine (US)
  • Children's Hospital Colorado (US)
  • aAutism Center, Texas Children’s Hospital, Houston, Texas;
Corresponding author
Monteiro, Sonia A.
Venue
Pediatrics
Published
2019-10-01
Volume
144
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
OpenAlex
W2972700401
Cited by
97
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 3
FWCI
6.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U54HD083092)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family and Disability Support Research
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, autism screening, pediatric primary care, referral patterns, diagnostic findings, M-CHAT, neurodevelopmental disorders, specialist referral, delayed diagnosis, well-child visits
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Age Factors, Child, Preschool, Humans, Infant, Pediatrics, Referral and Consultation, Checklist, Lost to Follow-Up, Neurodevelopmental Disorders

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