Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 18, 2026
Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study
Published on: February 2, 2017
United Kingdom community growth screening 1994: a survey of current practice. "Screening for Growth Towards 2000"
Insights
UK community growth screening lacks standardization in policies and equipment, despite its perceived value. Further research and integrated child health surveillance are recommended for effective growth monitoring.
Area of Science:
- Pediatrics
- Public Health
- Endocrinology
Background:
- Child growth monitoring is crucial for early detection of health issues.
- Standardized community growth screening ensures consistent healthcare delivery.
- Existing practices in the UK require evaluation to identify areas for improvement.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess current policies, resources, and attitudes towards community growth screening in the UK.
- To identify variations in screening practices, equipment, and referral criteria.
Main Methods:
- A postal survey was conducted among community pediatricians and pediatric endocrinologists across the UK.
- Data collection focused on existing growth screening policies, equipment used, and referral practices.
Main Results:
- 81% of trusts/districts had written growth policies, with significant variation in screening age and frequency.
- Height screening occurred in 75-81% of districts, often only once before school.
- Standardization was lacking in equipment (73% used standard), charts (23% decimal age), and referral criteria.
Conclusions:
- Over 90% of respondents found growth screening valuable, contingent on resources.
- A significant lack of standardization in equipment, charts, and policies was identified.
- Research and audit are needed to clarify referral criteria and integrate growth monitoring into child health surveillance.
Objective:
To determine current policies, resources, and attitudes to community growth screening in the United Kingdom.
Methods:
A postal survey of community paediatricians and paediatric endocrinologists.
Results:
164 replies were received-most from senior clinical medical officers or community paediatricians-covering between 68 and 78% of the United Kingdom population. One hundred and thirty three (81%) trusts or districts had a written growth policy. Preschool and school age height screening took place in 75% and 81% of districts respectively, but most children were only measured once before school or at school. Policies for the age at which measurements were made and their frequency varied enormously. Seventy three per cent used standard equipment, the most popular being the Minimetre. A wide variety of charts were used, of which 23% were decimal age charts. A large number of referral criteria were used, including height, height velocity, and weight. Most children were referred to hospital outpatient clinics rather than specialist growth clinics.
Conclusions:
Over 90% of respondents felt that growth screening was either extremely valuable or useful depending on resources. The survey showed a widespread lack of standardisation of equipment, charts, and policies. Referral criteria and objectives need to be clarified by research and audit, and growth monitoring integrated into a systematic programme of child health surveillance.
Related Concept Videos
01:23Microbial Growth Measurement: Direct Methods
01:27Microbial Growth Measurement: Indirect Methods
01:27Growth Models with Integration: Problem Solving