Paeds SAQs · preventive-and-community-paediatrics
Screening test principles in children — formative SAQs
Formative SAQs on programme criteria, predictive values in low prevalence, and false-positive counselling.
On this page & tools
Target exams
SAQ 1 (10 marks)
A public health team proposes a new universal school-entry blood test for a rare treatable condition (prevalence about 1 in 2,000). A laboratory assay is available. Confirmatory testing would require tertiary travel. [1] [2]
- List five programme criteria you would apply before supporting rollout. (5) [1] [2] [3]
- Explain why positive predictive value may still be low despite high specificity. (3) [5]
- State one equity risk of launching without a local confirmatory pathway. (2) [2] [8]
Model answer
Apply criteria in the Wilson–Jungner / modern lineage: important condition; acceptable accurate test; effective early treatment; agreed policy and quality programme; facilities for diagnosis and treatment; informed choice; equity; and explicit net benefit after harms (false positives, overdiagnosis, cost). [1] [2] [3] When prevalence is very low, most screened children are well, so even a highly specific test can generate many false positives relative to true positives among those who flag positive—PPV falls. [5] Launching without usable local confirmation shifts burden onto families least able to travel, creating inequitable incomplete pathways and harm without benefit. [2] [8]
SAQ 2 (10 marks)
Parents receive a positive newborn screening flag. Confirmatory testing one week later is negative. They remain anxious. [7]
- Distinguish false positive from overdiagnosis in one sentence each. (2) [4]
- Outline your counselling after the confirmatory negative result. (4) [7] [5]
- List four programme-level actions that reduce false-positive harm. (4) [2] [8]
Model answer
False positive: screen positive but target disease absent on the reference pathway. Overdiagnosis: a real finding that would not have caused harm yet may trigger labelling or treatment. [4] Counselling: the baby does not have the target disease; explain why screens are set sensitive; acknowledge that worry is common and valid; avoid further cascade tests without indication; safety-net for unrelated future symptoms without blaming the cleared screen. [7] [5] Programme actions: optimise cut-offs and two-step design; rapid confirmatory access; clear parent information at offer and result; active psychosocial support and exit counselling; audit false-positive rates and time-to-clearance. [2] [8]
References
- [1]Andermann A Revisiting Wilson and Jungner in the genomic age: a review of screening criteria over the past 40 years Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2008.PMID 18438522
- [2]Dobrow MJ Consolidated principles for screening based on a systematic review and consensus process CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 2018.PMID 29632037
- [3]Harris R Reconsidering the criteria for evaluating proposed screening programs: reflections from 4 current and former members of the U.S. Preventive services task force Epidemiologic reviews, 2011.PMID 21666224
- [4]Grimes DA Uses and abuses of screening tests Lancet (London, England), 2002.PMID 11897304
- [5]Akobeng AK Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 2007.PMID 17407452
- [6]Akobeng AK Understanding diagnostic tests 2: likelihood ratios, pre- and post-test probabilities and their use in clinical practice Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 2007.PMID 17306009
- [7]Tluczek A Psychosocial consequences of false-positive newborn screens for cystic fibrosis Qualitative health research, 2011.PMID 20852016
- [8]Goldenberg AJ Evaluating Harms in the Assessment of Net Benefit: A Framework for Newborn Screening Condition Review Maternal and child health journal, 2016.PMID 26833040