Article Sidebar
Article Details
Issue
Section
Articles
A. AFRICAN HEALTH SCIENCES OPEN ACCESS POLICY
While African Health Sciences has been freely accessible online there have been questions on whether it is Open Access or not. We wish to clearly state that indeed African Health Sciences is Open Access. There are key issues regarding Open Access needing clarification for avoidance of doubt:
- 1. Henceforth, papers in African Health Sciences will be published under the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution License) 4.0 International. See details on https://creativecomons.org/)
- 2. The copyright owners or the authors grant the 3rd party (perpetually and in advance) the right to disseminate, reproduce, or use the research papers in part or in full, format/medium as long as:
- No substantive errors are introduced in the process
- Attribution of authorship and correct citation details are given
- The referencing details are not changed.
Should the papers be reproduced in part, this must be clearly stated.
- 3. The papers will be freely and universally accessible online in an easily readable format such as XML in at least one widely recognized open access repository such as PUBMED CENTRAL.
B. ABRIDGED LICENCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN AUTHORS AND African Health Sciences
I submitted my manuscript to African Health Sciences and would like to affirm that:
1.0 I am authorized by my co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
2.0 I guarantee, on behalf of self and co-authors:
- That the paper is original, and has not been published in any other peer-reviewed journal; nor is it under consideration by other journal (s). It does not infringe existing copyright or any other person’s rights
- That we are/I am the sole author(s) of the paper and with authority to enter into this agreement. My granting rights to African Health Sciences is not in breach of any other obligation
- That the paper contains nothing unlawful, or libelous. Nor anything that would constitute a breach of contract, confidence or commitment given to secrecy, if published
- That I/we have taken care to ensure the integrity of the article.
3.0 I and all co-authors, agree that the paper, if accepted for publication, shall be licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. (see https://creativecommons.org/)
Main Article Content
Screening for disability in a community: the ‘ten questions' screen for children, in Bondo, Kenya.
Abstract
Background: Although the need for early identification and interventions of disabilities is evident, the current state of routine screening practice in Kenya needs intensive training of screeners before more rigorous techniques are introduced.
Objective: To compare the precision and practical utility of the ‘ten questions' and EARC screens among the 2 – 9 year olds in a community setting.
Method: In this analytical comparative cross-sectional survey of two disabilities screening methods. multiphase sampling and multistage data collection procedures were employed. Quantitative research utilizing structured interview checklist was used for data collection. It described the prevalence rates of different types of disabilities using both methods. It analyzed the precision and practical utility of the two methods in a community setting.
Results: 64 of the 399 children under study were disabled (50.5 % male and 49.5 % female). The ‘ten questions' picks up only those problems that are of great concern to families. EARC services are a more definite case defining process of measuring the existence and degree of disability in children. It screens the children who are severely disabled leaving out the mildly disabled and medical conditions which, when left untreated, could lead to possible disablement.
Conclusion: Parents need to be sensitized about symptoms requiring the ten questions that can be used to screen out the potentially disabled children and the Education Assessment and Resource Centres (EARC) be used to diagnose the type and degree of the disability and refer the ill children for treatment. The basic needs of disabled children could be met in the community and do not require highly specialized personnel. They need to be localized and accessible.
African Health Sciences 2003; 3(1): 33-39
Objective: To compare the precision and practical utility of the ‘ten questions' and EARC screens among the 2 – 9 year olds in a community setting.
Method: In this analytical comparative cross-sectional survey of two disabilities screening methods. multiphase sampling and multistage data collection procedures were employed. Quantitative research utilizing structured interview checklist was used for data collection. It described the prevalence rates of different types of disabilities using both methods. It analyzed the precision and practical utility of the two methods in a community setting.
Results: 64 of the 399 children under study were disabled (50.5 % male and 49.5 % female). The ‘ten questions' picks up only those problems that are of great concern to families. EARC services are a more definite case defining process of measuring the existence and degree of disability in children. It screens the children who are severely disabled leaving out the mildly disabled and medical conditions which, when left untreated, could lead to possible disablement.
Conclusion: Parents need to be sensitized about symptoms requiring the ten questions that can be used to screen out the potentially disabled children and the Education Assessment and Resource Centres (EARC) be used to diagnose the type and degree of the disability and refer the ill children for treatment. The basic needs of disabled children could be met in the community and do not require highly specialized personnel. They need to be localized and accessible.
African Health Sciences 2003; 3(1): 33-39
