Conexiant
Login
  • The Analytical Scientist
  • The Cannabis Scientist
  • The Medicine Maker
  • The Ophthalmologist
  • The Pathologist
  • The Traditional Scientist
The Pathologist
  • Explore Pathology

    Explore

    • Latest
    • Insights
    • Case Studies
    • Opinion & Personal Narratives
    • Research & Innovations
    • Product Profiles

    Featured Topics

    • Molecular Pathology
    • Infectious Disease
    • Digital Pathology

    Issues

    • Latest Issue
    • Archive
  • Subspecialties
    • Oncology
    • Histology
    • Cytology
    • Hematology
    • Endocrinology
    • Neurology
    • Microbiology & Immunology
    • Forensics
    • Pathologists' Assistants
  • Training & Education

    Career Development

    • Professional Development
    • Career Pathways
    • Workforce Trends

    Educational Resources

    • Guidelines & Recommendations
    • App Notes

    Events

    • Webinars
    • Live Events
  • Events
    • Live Events
    • Webinars
  • Profiles & Community

    People & Profiles

    • Power List
    • Voices in the Community
    • Authors & Contributors
  • Multimedia
    • Video
    • Podcasts
    • Pathology Captures
Subscribe
Subscribe

False

The Pathologist / Issues / 2017 / Dec / Fostering Better Care
Microbiology & Immunology Screening and monitoring Microbiology and Immunology Clinical care Laboratory management

Fostering Better Care

Children entering foster care receive extensive, but not always cost-effective, screening

By Michael Schubert 12/14/2017 1 min read

Share

When a child enters foster care, he or she receives a full medical evaluation, including laboratory testing of hemoglobin and lead levels and screening for hepatitis B and C, syphilis, tuberculosis, HIV, and (in sexually active adolescents) gonorrhea and chlamydia. But is all this testing really necessary – and is it worth the cost to the foster care system? New research suggests not (1). Children entering foster care currently undergo laboratory testing based on recommendations developed by an expert panel in New York, which were last endorsed in 2005 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. “At the time, expert opinion was the highest level of evidence available, as there was very little scientific literature on children in foster care,” explains lead author Mary Greiner, who goes on to say that research is paying increasing attention to this underserved population and opinion is shifting.

But if a one-size-fits-all approach to laboratory testing for these children is not cost-effective – what is the alternative? Greiner and her colleagues propose a more targeted approach. “Targeted screening would involve looking at the community and the individual being tested,” she says. “Each community may have different prevalence rates of infections and each individual may have their own risk factors, such as exposure to high-risk activities or a history of sexual abuse that would confer increased risk for specific infections.” The study revealed, for instance, that chlamydia screening in sexually active populations provides a good return on investment; 7 percent of adolescents tested positive, meaning that it’s more cost-effective to screen everyone than to miss existing infections. For diseases like syphilis or tuberculosis, however, the opposite is true – fewer than 1 percent of children are infected, so screening an almost entirely healthy population is unnecessary and expensive. “In the future, algorithms will likely account for infection prevalence rates in a given community and an individual patient’s risk factors for specific infections,” says Greiner.

Nonetheless, the researchers were somewhat surprised to find infection rates as low as they were. “Our biggest surprise was that the risk for infectious disease was quite low in this population, at least in our area of the country. Youth in foster care are at high risk of medical problems and come from environments where they are in contact with adults known to be at high risk for infectious disease issues like HIV and hepatitis C.” The assumption was that foster youth would also be at high risk – but that is evidently not the case. In the future, then, perhaps they can be spared the extensive testing current guidelines recommend in favor of more optimized screening for the diseases most likely to affect them. “Despite our article’s focus on infectious disease findings, youth in foster care continue to be high risk for other medical problems, including developmental delay and mental health concerns – and they certainly warrant ‘early and often’ health care surveillance, as recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics,” concludes Greiner.

Newsletters

Receive the latest analytical scientist news, personalities, education, and career development – weekly to your inbox.

Newsletter Signup Image

References

  1. MV Greiner et al., “Laboratory screening for children entering foster care”, Pediatrics, [Epub ahead of print] (2017). PMID: 29141915.

About the Author(s)

Michael Schubert

While obtaining degrees in biology from the University of Alberta and biochemistry from Penn State College of Medicine, I worked as a freelance science and medical writer. I was able to hone my skills in research, presentation and scientific writing by assembling grants and journal articles, speaking at international conferences, and consulting on topics ranging from medical education to comic book science. As much as I’ve enjoyed designing new bacteria and plausible superheroes, though, I’m more pleased than ever to be at Texere, using my writing and editing skills to create great content for a professional audience.

More Articles by Michael Schubert

Explore More in Analytical Science

Dive deeper into the analytical science. Explore the latest articles, case studies, expert insights, and groundbreaking research.

False

Advertisement

Recommended

False

Related Content

Flexible Solutions With FlexVUE
Screening and monitoring
Flexible Solutions With FlexVUE

December 29, 2021

1 min read

Quickly customize your immune panels with Ultivue’s new innovation

What’s New in Infectious Disease? (December 2021)
Screening and monitoring
What’s New in Infectious Disease?

December 23, 2021

1 min read

The latest research and news on COVID-19 and the infectious disease landscape

A Pig In a Poke
Screening and monitoring
A Pig In a Poke

October 21, 2016

1 min read

When importing livestock for food or breeding, European countries may inadvertently open their borders to superbugs as well

Sneaky Superbugs
Screening and monitoring
Sneaky Superbugs

October 21, 2016

1 min read

Norway’s strict LA-MRSA transmission measures prevent the import of almost all live pigs – but the bacteria have found a new way in

False

The Pathologist
Subscribe

About

  • About Us
  • Work at Conexiant Europe
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertise With Us
  • Contact Us

Copyright © 2025 Texere Publishing Limited (trading as Conexiant), with registered number 08113419 whose registered office is at Booths No. 1, Booths Park, Chelford Road, Knutsford, England, WA16 8GS.