Can we do better in identifying child developmental conditions early? Sensitivity and specificity of the Watch Me Grow Integrated (WMG-I) digital developmental screening and surveillance tool in Australia
In brief
Digital developmental screening detected 94% of needs, versus 76% with routine assessment
Among 151 children given detailed reference assessments, the Watch Me Grow digital approach had 93.9% sensitivity for developmental needs, compared with 75.9% for routine assessment; specificity was similar at 71.4% and 66.7%. The findings suggest digital screening could identify more children for follow-up, but only a subset of the 655 children received reference assessments, leaving accuracy in broader use uncertain.
- Journal
- BMJ open (Q1)
- Published
- 25 September 2026
- Study design
- Randomized controlled trial
- Evidence level
- Level 1, High (CEBM 1b)
- Authors
- Christa Lam-Cassettari, Kate Short, Pankaj Garg, Joseph Descallar, Feroza Khan, Catherine Bradford, et al.
- PMID
- 42790914
- DOI
- 10.1136/bmjopen-2026-117341
Why clinicians should know about it
- Picked for Pediatrics and Child Health (top studies of the week, 27 September 2026): Watch Me Grow digital developmental screening accuracy
- Picked for Psychiatry and Mental Health (top studies of the week, 27 September 2026): High-quality evidence in a top journal
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: While child developmental checks are universally recommended, engagement with developmental surveillance programmes is low globally. To address this policy to practice gap, this study examined the diagnostic accuracy of the 'Watch Me Grow' Integrated (WMG-I) digital developmental screening and ongoing surveillance approach. DESIGN: This sub-study examined diagnostic accuracy of the WMG-I digital approach compared with routine assessment (service as usual (SaU)) in a prospective sample. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING AND INTERVENTION: Parents of 16-to-35-month-old children attending 40 general practices (randomised to WMG-I or SaU) in culturally diverse metropolitan New South Wales and Queensland, Australia, participating in a longitudinal cluster randomised controlled trial. Parents in the WMG-I group completed the WMG-I digital weblink, including a primary screener and automated secondary screener (if concerns were reported). On completion, results and recommendations were transmitted to the parent and general practitioner (GP) allowing discussion and further assessment. This was compared with SaU GP assessment. Once engaged, based on child's date of birth, WMG-I sends automated reminders to take the check again at the next recommended ages, thereby allowing ongoing developmental monitoring/surveillance. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: All children with identified concerns and a 10% systematic sample without concerns received a reference standard assessment using the Mullen Scale of Early Learning, Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule and Vineland Adaptive Behaviour Scale. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of WMG-I compared with SAU on the reference standard assessments. RESULTS: Of the 655 children in the study at age 2 years, 151 children received reference standard assessment. There was a statistically significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy, with 93.9% sensitivity in the WMG-I group (95% CI 88.1% to 99.7%) and 75.9% (95% CI 57.2% to 94%) in the SaU group (p=0.035); specificity was 71.4% (95% CI 54.7% to 88.1%) and 66.7% (95% CI 44.9% to 88.4%) (p=0.743), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Universal digital surveillance programmes such as WMG-I can enhance time and service efficiency to accurately identify developmental needs. Leveraging routine primary care contact such as immunisation visits to administer WMG-I digital offers a scalable solution for increasing the uptake of developmental surveillance at a population level internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR12621000680864.
Abstract as published, via PubMed.
For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.