↓ Skip to main content

Screening for foot problems in children: is this practice justifiable?

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Screening for foot problems in children: is this practice justifiable?
Published in
Journal of Foot and Ankle Research, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/1757-1146-5-18
Pubmed ID
Authors

Angela Margaret Evans

Abstract

Podiatry screening of children is a common practice, which occurs largely without adequate data to support the need for such activity. Such programs may be either formalised, or more ad hoc in nature, depending upon the use of guidelines or existing models. Although often not used, the well-established criteria for assessing the merits of screening programs can greatly increase the understanding as to whether such practices are actually worthwhile. This review examines the purpose of community health screening in the Australian context, as occurs for tuberculosis, breast, cervical and prostate cancers, and then examines podiatry screening practices for children with reference to the criteria of the World Health Organisation (WHO). Topically, the issue of paediatric foot posture forms the focus of this review, as it presents with great frequency to a range of clinicians. Comparison is made with developmental dysplasia of the hip, in which instance the WHO criteria are well met. Considering that the burden of the condition being screened for must be demonstrable, and that early identification must be found to be beneficial, in order to justify a screening program, there is no sound support for either continuing or establishing podiatry screenings for children.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 97 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 23%
Student > Bachelor 19 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Other 8 8%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 25%
Sports and Recreations 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 21 22%