PTOTSLPSurveyChild: care, health and development2026

Clinician Perceptions Around Management of Sleep Problems in Children With Neurodisability.

Kasey Fullwood, Kate O'Donohue, Anne Bernard and 4 others

PMID 41685683

WHAT IT FOUND

Non-sleep clinicians rarely use validated screening tools for sleep problems in children with neurodisability, relying instead on informal questions.

Over half reported inadequate training to manage these issues. Families typically raise sleep concerns themselves, but clinicians struggle to identify causes or navigate referral pathways.

Key findings

01Seventy-one percent of clinicians who routinely screen for sleep problems do not use a standardised tool, instead relying on their own questions.

02Over half of the surveyed clinicians reported that their training had inadequately prepared them to manage sleep problems in children with neurodisability.

03Sleep problems were frequently raised by families during consultations, but clinicians faced challenges in identifying causes and navigating specialist referral pathways.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study relied on self-selection, meaning only clinicians who perceived sleep as relevant to their practice may have responded, potentially skewing results towards those who already encounter these issues. Some specialties had very few respondents, so their views may not be representative of that discipline. The survey did not capture perspectives from rural or regional settings, where access to specialist care differs significantly from tertiary hospitals. No denominator was calculated for the survey invitations, so the response rate and potential non-response bias are unknown.

Declared interests

The research was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the low use of validated screening tools as evidence that they are ineffective or unnecessary. The study reports clinician perceptions and habits, not patient outcomes, and does not demonstrate that informal questioning achieves the same clinical benefit as standardised assessment.

Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →