Objective: To assess whether the components of the Healthy Kids Check (HKC), a preschool screening check recently added to the Australian Government’s Enhanced Primary Care Program, are supported by evidence-based guidelines or reviews.
Data sources: Guideline and MEDLINE databases were searched for guidelines and systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2008 that were relevant to screening, prevention or well-child care in primary health care, and including children of preschool age. Search subjects reflected the HKC components: growth, weight, obesity, vision, hearing, oral health, enuresis, encopresis, allergic disease and food allergies.
Data extraction: For each component of the HKC, guidelines addressing the presumed rationale for screening, or the test or tool required to implement it, were reviewed. Relevant evidence-based and consensus-based guideline recommendations were assessed as either supporting or opposing components of the HKC, or stating that the evidence was insufficient to recommend screening of preschool children.
Data synthesis: Guidelines were often inconsistent in their recommendations. Most of the components of the HKC (eg, screening for chronic otitis media and questioning about toilet habits) are not supported by evidence-based guidelines relevant to the primary care setting, though a number of consensus-based guidelines are supportive.
Conclusions: There is currently a dearth of evidence relevant to child health surveillance in primary care. The components of the HKC could be refined to better reflect evidence-based guidelines that target health monitoring of preschool children.
The Healthy Kids Check (HKC), introduced by the Australian Government into the Enhanced Primary Care Program in July 2008, continues the trend of illness prevention and improved coordination of care through services that attract Medicare Benefits Schedule rebates. It targets every 4-year-old child in Australia for a basic health check before commencing school, to “promote early detection of lifestyle risk factors, delayed development and illness, and introduce guidance for healthy lifestyles and early intervention strategies”.1
Medical practitioners and practice nurses can administer the HKC, with a Medicare rebate for the service being contingent on completing the vaccinations for 4-year-olds.2 Six areas of health must be examined as part of the HKC (Box 1), some of which contain a number of components. Additional examinations may be completed at the discretion of the practitioner.
We performed a search of databases and websites (Box 2) for clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews published between January 2000 and October 2008. Search terms included “child health”, “prevention”, “screening”, and health topics reflecting the mandatory components of the HKC.
Guidelines and systematic reviews were included if they were published in English, considered children of preschool age, and were relevant to practitioners in primary care. The topic “immunisation” and guidelines adapted from other primary guideline sources were excluded.
For each component of the HKC, guidelines were extracted if they addressed the presumed rationale for screening or the test or tool required to implement the examination in the primary care setting. Guideline recommendations are often graded to reflect the best available evidence, but the method used for this is not consistent between guideline developers. For the purposes of this review, statements were considered to be “evidence-based” if they incorporated evidence equivalent to National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) level III-3 or above, and “consensus-based” if below this level.3
A total of 29 guidelines and five systematic reviews that contained statements relevant to the mandatory components of the HKC were retrieved.4-37 Guideline recommendations were tabulated according to whether they supported or opposed each HKC assessment (Box 3). Many guidelines identified gaps in the evidence and were unable to make a recommendation either for or against a particular screening examination. One guideline10 has since been withdrawn, at the end of 2009.
Stand-alone measures of height and weight do not confer health benefits for preschool children in screening programs,4,5 but are useful when translated into measures of body mass index (BMI) (weight [kg] divided by height squared [m2]). Guidelines consistently indicate that calculating BMI is a practical estimate of childhood overweight and obesity and should be documented on appropriate BMI percentile charts.5-13 The United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention BMI-for-age percentile charts, which identify children at risk of overweight at a BMI above the 85th percentile (obesity, above 95th percentile), should be used until local BMI growth charts become available.12 The lack of effective treatment measures means that screening programs for childhood overweight and obesity remain controversial.4,5
Guidelines are contradictory in their recommendations for each component of vision screening. There is no direct evidence that screening for visual impairment, compared with no screening, leads to improved visual acuity.14,15 Despite this, preschool screening programs are strongly supported in the US,16-18 based on indirect evidence that screening tests are effective at detecting and allowing treatment for strabismus, amblyopia and refractive error.14,15 However, their application in primary care has not been established,15 and there is insufficient evidence to determine if screening and subsequent treatment reduce the prevalence of amblyopia in older children.19 Screening for eye infections or injury may only be appropriate in some Indigenous communities in Australia,38 and programs should be tailored accordingly.
How to assess a child’s hearing as part of the HKC is unclear, as hearing test options have not been adequately trialled for use in primary care.20 One guideline advocates inspection of the eardrums and direct questioning of the parent about problems with hearing or speech development.21 A review of the whispered voice test found it to be reasonably sensitive (80%–96%) and specific (90%–98%) in children, but the testing procedure requires standardisation in the primary care setting.22 In the US and United Kingdom, audiometry is the preferred screening method.20,21,23 Pneumatic otoscopy successfully identifies otitis media with effusion, but screening programs for non-Indigenous children are not supported by guidelines.4,24,25
There is currently insufficient evidence to recommend for or against oral health screening in preschool children.4 However, the rising prevalence of dental caries in young school-aged children is a major public health concern.39 Evidence-based guidelines do not currently support general practitioners implementing caries risk assessments26,27 (clinical evaluation of the teeth and gums for plaque, gingivitis and decayed or missing teeth), and there is debate as to whether they should be trained to do so,28 or if this should be confined to dental practice.26 There is also insufficient evidence that referring children to the dentist and dietary counselling by GPs improves oral health.26 However, guidelines are consistent in recommending assessment of a child’s exposure to fluoride in drinking water29 or toothpaste, with good evidence for the benefits of brushing teeth twice daily with fluoride toothpaste.26,29,30
The evidence indicates that screening for problems with toileting at 4 years of age is inappropriate and should be removed from the HKC. Guidelines do not recommend assessment of enuresis until a child is at least 5 years old.31-33 A fifth of normal 5-year-olds still experience nocturnal enuresis.40 Screening for constipation and encopresis is not addressed in guidelines, except in association with enuresis.
Identifying children at risk of anaphylaxis and their subsequent management is an important step towards preventing food anaphylactic reactions in schools. This recommendation is derived from a consensus-based guideline,34 and recent Victorian legislation enforces it.41 Re-evaluating patients with suspected food allergy is also supported by guidelines to avoid unnecessary dietary restrictions, as many nutritionally important food allergies are outgrown.35,36 The assessment of other allergies is not addressed by guidelines, other than an evidence-based recommendation that referral to an allergist–immunologist may improve outcomes for children with allergic rhinitis and eczema.37
By filling a gap between maternal and child health nurse screening and examinations of selected children by school nursing services, the HKC has the potential to play a key role in childhood developmental surveillance, whereby professionals work with parents to detect specific problems over the course of time. However, despite the limitations of the search methods we used, the evidence behind the HKC is not compelling and its components are ill defined and lack rationale. The HKC could be refined to better reflect the available evidence. For example, guidelines that discussed fluoride exposure for oral health were based on high levels of evidence, and information on a child’s exposure to fluoride should be sought. On the other hand, screening for chronic otitis media and questioning about toilet habits are not supported by evidence and should be removed from the HKC.
Guidelines are also inconsistent in their recommendations. Most of the components of the HKC are not supported by evidence-based guidelines relevant to primary care, though a number of consensus-based guidelines are supportive. Some components of the eyesight check, hearing tests and the use of caries risk-assessment tools have not been validated in the general practice setting.15,22,27
This review attempted to identify guidelines that support the assessment tasks of the HKC. It did not include a formal review of the quality of those guidelines because the subject matter covered by the HKC is so diverse. Guideline quality may also account for inconsistency between recommendations, and further research could incorporate such a review.
Appraisal of guidelines that endorse the non-mandatory components of the HKC and that identify other useful preventive health measures is required. The uptake and utilisation of the HKC, and its perceived usefulness by health care providers and parents, could inform the program as a whole. Longer-term evaluation should ascertain how well parents comply with follow-up recommendations and the program’s impact on health outcomes.
1 Healthy Kids Check
Administered by child’s usual general practitioner or designated practice nurse
Conducted in conjunction with vaccinations for 4-year-olds
Provide parents with a copy of the Get set 4 life – habits for healthy kids guide, an information booklet that includes tips on child health and development
Checklist of mandatory assessments:
2 Databases and websites publishing guidelines used in this review
3 Mandatory assessment components of the Healthy Kids Check, with relevant guideline statements
BMI = body mass index. EB = evidence-based guideline statement (National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC] level III-3 or above3). CB = consensus-based guideline statement (below NHMRC level III-33).
- 1. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. Healthy Kids Check — fact sheet. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/Health_Kids_Check_Factsheet (accessed Nov 2008).
- 2. Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. MBS Online — Medicare Benefits Schedule. Item No. 709. http://www9.health.gov.au/mbs/search.cfm?q=709&sopt=I (accessed Nov 2008).
- 3. National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines: Stage 2 Consultation 2008. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/Stage%202%20Consultation%20Levels %20and%20Grades.pdf (accessed Jan 2009).
- 4. Oberklaid F, Wake M, Harris C, et al. Child health screening and surveillance: a critical review of the evidence. Melbourne: National Health and Medical Research Council, 2002. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/ch42.pdf (accessed Dec 2008).
- 5. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening and interventions for overweight in children and adolescents: recommendation statement. Rockville, Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2005. (AHRQ Publication No. 05-0574-A.) http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf05/choverwt/choverrs.htm (accessed Dec 2008).
- 6. Lau DCW, Douketis JD, Morrison KM, et al. 2006 Canadian clinical practice guidelines on the management and prevention of obesity in adults and children. CMAJ 2007; 176 (8 Suppl): 1-117. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/data/176/8/S1/DC1/1 (accessed Dec 2008).
- 7. Michigan Quality Improvement Consortium. Prevention and identification of childhood overweight. Southfield, Mich: MQIC, 2008. http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=13171 (accessed Jan 2010).
- 8. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Obesity: the prevention, identification, assessment and management of overweight and obesity in adults and children. Clinical guidelines CG43. London: NICE, 2006: 444-523. http://www.nice.org.uk/CG043fullguideline (accessed Dec 2008).
- 9. Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. Nursing best practice guideline. Primary prevention of childhood obesity. Toronto: RNAO, 2005. http://www.rnao.org/bestpractices/PDF/BPG_childhood_obesity.pdf (accessed Dec 2008).
- 10. Singapore Ministry of Health, Singapore Association for the Study of Obesity. Clinical practice guidelines: obesity. Singapore: MOH, 2004. (Withdrawn 2009.) http://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/uploadedFiles/Publications/Guidelines/Clinical_Practice_Guidelines/CPGBooklet-Obesity.pdf (accessed Jan 2010).
- 11. Krebs NF, Jacobson MS; American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition. Prevention of pediatric overweight and obesity. Pediatrics 2003; 112: 424-430.
- 12. Steinbeck K; Guideline Development Working Party. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of overweight and obesity in children and adolescents. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council, 2003: 7-18. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/obesityguidelines-guidelines-children.htm (accessed Dec 2008).
- 13. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Management of obesity in children and young people. Guideline no. 69. Edinburgh: SIGN, 2003. http://www.sign.ac.uk/guidelines/fulltext/69 (accessed Dec 2008).
- 14. Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement. Health care guideline: preventive services for children and adolescents. 15th ed. Bloomington, Minn: ICSI, 2009. http://www.icsi.org/preventive_services_for_children__guideline_/preventive_services_for_children_and_adolescents_2531.html (accessed Jan 2010).
- 15. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for visual impairment in children younger than age 5 years: recommendation statement. Rockville, Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2004. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/visionscr/vischrs.htm (accessed Dec 2008).
- 16. American Academy of Ophthalmology Pediatric Ophthalmology/Strabismus Panel. Pediatric eye evaluations: I. Screening; II. Comprehensive ophthalmic evaluation. San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2007. http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?ss=15&doc_id=11753&nbr=006057 (accessed Nov 2008).
- 17. American Academy of Ophthalmology Pediatric Ophthalmology/Strabismus Panel. Amblyopia. San Francisco: American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2007. http://guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=11751&nbr=006055 (accessed Nov 2008).
- 18. American Academy of Pediatrics. Eye examination in infants, children, and young adults by pediatricians. Pediatrics 2003; 111 (4 Pt 1): 902-907.
- 19. Powell C, Hatt SR. Vision screening for amblyopia in childhood. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; (3): CD005020. http://www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD005020/frame.html (accessed Jan 2010).
- 20. Bamford J, Fortnum H, Bristow K, et al. Current practice, accuracy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the school entry hearing screen. Health Technol Assess 2007; 11 (32). http://www.hta.ac.uk/fullmono/mon1132.pdf (accessed Jan 2010).
- 21. Cunningham M, Cox EO; Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine and the Section on Otolaryngology and Bronchoesophagology. Hearing assessment in infants and children: recommendations beyond neonatal screening. Pediatrics 2003; 111: 436-440.
- 22. Pirozzo S, Papinczak T, Glasziou P. Whispered voice test for screening for hearing impairment in adults and children: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 327: 967.
- 23. Duncan PM, Duncan ED, Swanson J. Bright Futures: the screening table recommendations. Pediatr Ann 2008; 37: 152-158.
- 24. Simpson SA, Thomas CL, van der Linden MK, et al. Identification of children in the first four years of life for early treatment for otitis media with effusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; (1): CD004163. http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab004163.html (accessed Sep 2008).
- 25. Rosenfeld RM, Culpepper L, Doyle KJ, et al. Clinical practice guideline: otitis media with effusion. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2004; 130 (5 Suppl): S95-S118.
- 26. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Prevention and management of dental decay in the pre-school child. A national clinical guideline. Guideline no. 83. Edinburgh: SIGN, 2005. http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign83.pdf (accessed Dec 2008).
- 27. US Preventive Services Task Force. Prevention of dental caries in preschool children: recommendations and rationale. Rockville, Md: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2004. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/dentalchild/dentchrs.htm (accessed Dec 2008).
- 28. Hale KJ; American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Pediatric Dentistry. Oral health risk assessment timing and establishment of the dental home. Pediatrics 2003; 111 (5 Pt 1): 1113-1116.
- 29. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on fluoride therapy. Chicago: AAPD, 2008. http://www.aapd.org/media/Policies_Guidelines/G_FluorideTherapy.pdf (accessed Dec 2008).
- 30. Marinho VCC, Higgins JPT, Logan S, Sheiham A. Fluoride toothpastes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; (1): CD002278. http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab002278.html (accessed Nov 2008).
- 31. Paediatric Society of New Zealand. Best practice evidence based guideline. Nocturnal enuresis — ”bedwetting”. Wellington: PSNZ, 2005. http://www.nzgg.org.nz/guidelines/dsp_guideline_popup.cfm?&guidelineID=111 (accessed Sep 2008).
- 32. Asociación Espanola de Pediatría de Atención Primaria. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: primary monosymptomatic nocturnal enuresis in primary care. Rev Pediatr Atencion Prim 2005; VII Suppl 3: 1-149. http://www.guidelines.gov/summary/summary. aspx?doc_id=12239&nbr=006324 (accessed Dec 2008).
- 33. Fritz G, Rockney R, Bernet W, et al. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with enuresis. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2004; 43: 1540-1550.
- 34. Baumgart K, Brown S, Gold M, et al; Australasian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy Anaphylaxis Working Party. ASCIA guidelines for prevention of food anaphylactic reactions in schools, preschools and child-care centres. J Paediatr Child Health 2004; 40: 669-671.
- 35. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology; and American College of Allergy Asthma and Immunology. Food allergy: a practice parameter. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2006; 96: S1-S68. http://www.aaaai.org/professionals/resources/pdf/food_allergy_2006.pdf (accessed Dec 2008).
- 36. Finnish Medical Society Duodecim. Paediatric food hypersensitivity and allergy. In: EBM Guidelines. Evidence-based medicine. Helsinki: Wiley Interscience, 2008. http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary. aspx?ss=15&doc_id=12792&nbr=006594 (accessed Nov 2008).
- 37. American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Consultation and referral guidelines citing the evidence: how the allergist–immunologist can help. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2006; 117 (2 Suppl Consultation): S495-S523. http://www.guideline.gov/summary/summary.aspx?doc_id=9334 (accessed Nov 2008).
- 38. Mak D; Trachoma Steering Committee of the Communicable Disease Network Australia. Guidelines for the public health management of trachoma in Australia. Canberra: Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2006. http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cda-cdna-pubs-trachoma.htm/$FILE/trachoma2.pdf (accessed Sep 2009).
- 39. Armfield JM, Spencer AJ, Brennan DS. Dental health of Australia’s teenagers and pre-teen children: the Child Dental Health Survey, Australia 2003–04. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2009. (AIHW Cat. No. DEN 199.) http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/den/199/10778.pdf (accessed Jan 2010).
- 40. Caldwell PHY, Edgar D, Hodson E, Craig JC. 4. Bedwetting and toileting problems in children [MJA Practice Essentials – Paediatrics]. Med J Aust 2005; 182: 190-195. <MJA full text>
- 41. Parliament of Victoria. Children’s Services and Education Legislation Amendment (Anaphylaxis Management) Act 2008. http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/Domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubStatbook.nsf/f932b66241ecf1b7ca2 56e92000e23be/1BA6E53F3DA1B3AACA257 4020017E1D6/$FILE/08-003a.pdf (accessed Jan 2010).
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.