TY - JOUR
T1 - Neurodevelopmental screening for neonates less than 44 weeks gestation in low-income and middle-income countries
T2 - a systematic review
AU - Al-Haddad, Benjamin J.S.
AU - Olson, Elisabeth
AU - Reardon, Erin
AU - Bonney, Emmanuel
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ Group.
PY - 2025/4/2
Y1 - 2025/4/2
N2 - Introduction With global improvements in neonatal survival, more small and sick newborns in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are at increased risk of neurodevelopmental disability and delay. While there is increased recognition of the importance of early identification of neurodevelopmental differences and timely initiation of therapy, little is known about standardised neonatal neurodevelopmental screening tools in these settings. Methods We performed a systematic review to determine what standardised neurodevelopmental assessments had been used in LMICs for neonates before 44 weeks corrected gestational age and published in the literature. We excluded short-term clinical assessments designed for specific pathologies. We performed the search across seven databases, screened studies for eligibility and inclusion and extracted bibliographic data, country, patient characteristics, assessments and study aims. Results were summarised in tabular and graphical presentation. Results There were 2477 records screened, yielding 67 studies for inclusion. Studies in Asian countries made up 65.7%, while Latin America and Africa made up 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. Physicians and paramedical staff performed the screening assessments in only 16.4% of studies, and 92.5% of studies used inpatient recruitment. The Neonatal Behavioural Neurological Assessment (25.4%) was the most frequently used screening tool followed by the General Movements Assessment (22.4%), the Hammersmith Neonatal Neurological Examination/Dubowitz (16.4%) and the Neonatal Behavioural Assessment Scale (10.4%). Conclusions We did not identify any one neonatal neurodevelopmental screening assessment that is rapid, globally validated, identifies targets for intervention, has high predictive prognostic value and does not require neonatal or kinesiologic expertise or uncommon equipment. Such an assessment, in concert with evidence-based intervention, therapeutic delivery platforms, established referral pathways and trained personnel would improve functional outcomes for high-risk small and sick neonates in LMICs.
AB - Introduction With global improvements in neonatal survival, more small and sick newborns in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are at increased risk of neurodevelopmental disability and delay. While there is increased recognition of the importance of early identification of neurodevelopmental differences and timely initiation of therapy, little is known about standardised neonatal neurodevelopmental screening tools in these settings. Methods We performed a systematic review to determine what standardised neurodevelopmental assessments had been used in LMICs for neonates before 44 weeks corrected gestational age and published in the literature. We excluded short-term clinical assessments designed for specific pathologies. We performed the search across seven databases, screened studies for eligibility and inclusion and extracted bibliographic data, country, patient characteristics, assessments and study aims. Results were summarised in tabular and graphical presentation. Results There were 2477 records screened, yielding 67 studies for inclusion. Studies in Asian countries made up 65.7%, while Latin America and Africa made up 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. Physicians and paramedical staff performed the screening assessments in only 16.4% of studies, and 92.5% of studies used inpatient recruitment. The Neonatal Behavioural Neurological Assessment (25.4%) was the most frequently used screening tool followed by the General Movements Assessment (22.4%), the Hammersmith Neonatal Neurological Examination/Dubowitz (16.4%) and the Neonatal Behavioural Assessment Scale (10.4%). Conclusions We did not identify any one neonatal neurodevelopmental screening assessment that is rapid, globally validated, identifies targets for intervention, has high predictive prognostic value and does not require neonatal or kinesiologic expertise or uncommon equipment. Such an assessment, in concert with evidence-based intervention, therapeutic delivery platforms, established referral pathways and trained personnel would improve functional outcomes for high-risk small and sick neonates in LMICs.
KW - Global Health
KW - Neurology
KW - Paediatrics
KW - Public Health
KW - Systematic review
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105001869043
U2 - 10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017683
DO - 10.1136/bmjgh-2024-017683
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:105001869043
SN - 2059-7908
VL - 10
JO - BMJ Global Health
JF - BMJ Global Health
IS - 4
M1 - e017683
ER -