Search

Aim: This paper describes the methods, strategies and technologies used to conduct a scoping literature review examining primary care (PC) and public health (PH) collaboration. It presents challenges encountered as well as recommendations and 'lessons learned' from conducting the review with a large geographically distributed team comprised of researchers and decision-makers using an integrated knowledge translation approach., Background: Scoping studies comprehensively map literature in a specific area guided by general research questions. This methodology is especially useful in researching complex topics. Thus, their popularity is growing. Stakeholder consultations are an important strategy to enhance study results. Therefore, information about how best to involve stakeholders throughout the process is necessary to improve quality and uptake of reviews., Methods: This review followed Arksey and O'Malley's five stages: identifying research questions; identifying relevant studies; study selection; charting the data; and collating, summarizing and reporting results. Technological tools and strategies included: citation management software (Reference Manager®), qualitative data analysis software (NVivo 8), web conferencing (Elluminate Live!) and a PH portal (eHealthOntario), teleconferences, email and face-to-face meetings., Findings: Of 6125 papers identified, 114 were retained as relevant. Most papers originated in the United Kingdom (38%), the United States (34%) and Canada (19%). Of 80 papers that reported on specific collaborations, most were descriptive reports (51.3%). Research studies represented 34 papers: 31% were program evaluations, 9% were literature reviews and 9% were discussion papers. Key strategies to ensure rigor in conducting a scoping literature review while engaging a large geographically dispersed team are presented for each stage. The use of enabling technologies was essential to managing the process. Leadership in championing the use of technologies and a clear governance structure were necessary for their successful uptake.

Our inaugural story for Pediatrics in the Community was in the January 2007 edition of Pediatrics in Review. Dr Robert Haggerty provided the historical rationale for community pediatrics training (CPT) as part of that feature. Now, 1 year later, we asked Dr Jeff Kaczorowski, Director of the CPTI at the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), to describe the present and future of CPT. As the stories in this series have shown, some residents are having wonderful community experiences already and making a difference in the lives of children in their communities. The challenge is how to make such experiences available to all pediatric residents and pediatricians.-C. Andrew Aligne, MD, MPH, Section Editor.

Children in the United States increasingly are at risk for health problems that are precipitated or exacerbated by social, community, and environmental factors. Currently, pediatricians are unable to sufficiently address these health conditions without expanding their roles beyond that of providing health care to individual patients. Thus, to improve child health, physicians must work within their communities to identify the needs of the population they serve and take appropriate action to influence the private and public policies that address these needs. Healthy People 2010 establishes a well-supported framework that confronts the social and community factors that affect children's health and serves as a resource for community-minded pediatricians. In addition to Healthy People 2010, other successful initiatives have been created by pediatricians, and they must be expanded if the pediatric community is to alleviate the social, community, and environmental factors that negatively affect child health.

Several recommendations in the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement "The Pediatrician's Role in Community Pediatrics" underscore the essential role of research as an agent of change to promote the health and well-being of children. This article provides (1) a framework for thinking about research in community pediatrics, (2) special considerations important in conducting community-level research, (3) an example of community-level research that has significantly decreased mortality in children (prevention of sudden infant death syndrome), (4) an example of a current issue illustrating the importance of community pediatrics research (promotion of school readiness), and (5) a discussion of future directions for research. Many of the leading health problems facing the United States as outlined in Healthy People 2010 are problems that affect children or have their roots in childhood and are likely to be addressed by community-level research and interventions. It seems clear that pediatricians should be learning to participate in, advocate for, and conduct more community pediatrics research.

Context: Iron deficiency anemia in infants can cause developmental problems. However, the relationship between iron status and cognitive achievement in older children is less clear., Objective: To investigate the relationship between iron deficiency and cognitive test scores among a nationally representative sample of school-aged children and adolescents., Design: The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III 1988-1994 provides cross-sectional data for children 6 to 16 years old and contains measures of iron status including transferrin saturation, free erythrocyte protoporphyrin, and serum ferritin. Children were considered iron-deficient if any 2 of these values were abnormal for age and gender, and standard hemoglobin values were used to detect anemia. Scores from standardized tests were compared for children with normal iron status, iron deficiency without anemia, and iron deficiency with anemia. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association of iron status and below average test scores, controlling for confounding factors., Results: Among the 5398 children in the sample, 3% were iron-deficient. The prevalence of iron deficiency was highest among adolescent girls (8.7%). Average math scores were lower for children with iron deficiency with and without anemia, compared with children with normal iron status (86.4 and 87.4 vs 93.7). By logistic regression, children with iron deficiency had greater than twice the risk of scoring below average in math than did children with normal iron status (odds ratio: 2.3; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-4.4). This elevated risk was present even for iron-deficient children without anemia (odds ratio: 2.4; 95% confidence interval: 1.1-5.2)., Conclusions: We demonstrated lower standardized math scores among iron-deficient school-aged children and adolescents, including those with iron deficiency without anemia. Screening for iron deficiency without anemia may be warranted for children at risk.