Skip to main content
MedVellum
MCQsExamsAtlas
DashboardPricing
MBBS / Core medicine✳Dermatology✳ICU Fellowship (CICM)✳Anaesthesia✳Emergency Medicine✳Psychiatry Fellowship✳Paediatrics Fellowship✳Physician Medicine✳MCQs✳SAQs✳Vivas✳OSCE✳Evidence-first✳MBBS / Core medicine✳Dermatology✳ICU Fellowship (CICM)✳Anaesthesia✳Emergency Medicine✳Psychiatry Fellowship✳Paediatrics Fellowship✳Physician Medicine✳MCQs✳SAQs✳Vivas✳OSCE✳Evidence-first✳

MedVellum.

The folio

Exam-exhaustive medical education across every specialty — evidence-graded topics, engraved plates, and practice in every written and oral format. Educational content only — not medical advice.

llms.txt · psychiatry LLM catalog · sitemap

Atlas

  • Specialty atlas
  • MBBS / Core medicine
  • Dermatology
  • ICU Fellowship (CICM)
  • Anaesthesia
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Psychiatry Fellowship
  • Paediatrics Fellowship
  • Physician Medicine

Study & account

  • MCQ practice
  • Practice alias
  • Exam tools
  • Dashboard
  • Pricing
  • Sign in

© 2026 MedVellum. For education only — not a substitute for clinical judgement.

Folio edition · Set in Instrument Serif & Archivo

Paeds SAQspreventive-and-community-paediatrics

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.

20 marks30 min
On this page & tools

Target exams

RACP General PaediatricsMRCPCH TheoryABP General Pediatrics

Target exams

RACP General PaediatricsMRCPCH TheoryABP General Pediatrics
Prompt
Screening test principles

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]

  1. List five programme criteria you would apply before supporting rollout. (5) [1] [2] [3]
  2. Explain why positive predictive value may still be low despite high specificity. (3) [5]
  3. 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]

  1. Distinguish false positive from overdiagnosis in one sentence each. (2) [4]
  2. Outline your counselling after the confirmatory negative result. (4) [7] [5]
  3. 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. [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. [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. [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. [4]Grimes DA Uses and abuses of screening tests Lancet (London, England), 2002.PMID 11897304
  5. [5]Akobeng AK Understanding diagnostic tests 1: sensitivity, specificity and predictive values Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992), 2007.PMID 17407452
  6. [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. [7]Tluczek A Psychosocial consequences of false-positive newborn screens for cystic fibrosis Qualitative health research, 2011.PMID 20852016
  8. [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