02772nas a2200313   4500000000100000008004100001100002200042700001500064700001500079700001300094700001300107700001600120700002200136700001500158700001600173700001300189700001900202700001700221700001400238700001300252700001500265700001300280700001300293700001300306700002200319245010900341490000600450520200200456       2012                            d1 aRussell Elizabeth1 aWatkins R.1 aElliott E.1 aMutch R.1 aJones H.1 aMcKenzie A.1 aFitzpatrick James1 aO'Leary C.1 aHalliday J.1 aBurns L.1 aCarter Maureen1 aLatimer Jane1 aPeadon E.1 aPayne J.1 aWilkins A.1 aHayes L.1 aMiers S.1 aBower C.1 aD'Antoine Heather00aConsensus diagnostic criteria for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in Australia: a modified Delphi study0 v23 a<p>
Objective To evaluate health professionals' agreement with components of published diagnostic criteria for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders (FASD) in order to guide the development of standard diagnostic guidelines for Australia.Design A modified Delphi process was used to assess agreement among health professionals with expertise or experience in FASD screening or diagnosis. An online survey, which included 36 Likert statements on diagnostic methods, was administered over two survey rounds. For fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), health professionals were presented with concepts from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), University of Washington (UW), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), revised IOM and Canadian diagnostic criteria. For partial FAS (PFAS), alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder (ARND), and alcohol-related birth defects (ARBD), concepts based on the IOM and the Canadian diagnostic criteria were compared.Setting/participants 130 Australian and 9 international health professionals.Results Of 139 health professionals invited to complete the survey, 103 (74.1%) responded, and 74 (53.2%) completed one or more questions on diagnostic criteria. We found consensus agreement among participants on the diagnostic criteria for FAS, with the UW criteria most commonly endorsed when compared with all other published criteria for FAS. When health professionals were presented with concepts based on the Canadian and IOM diagnostic criteria, we found consensus agreement but no clear preference for either the Canadian or IOM criteria for the diagnosis of PFAS, and no consensus agreement on diagnostic criteria for ARND. We also found no consensus on the IOM diagnostic criteria for ARBD.Conclusions Participants indicated clear support for use of the UW diagnostic criteria for FAS in Australia. These findings should be used to develop guidelines to facilitate improved awareness of, and address identified gaps in the infrastructure for, FASD diagnosis in Australia.
</p>