TABLE 4.
Responses Regarding CP Diagnosis in 4 Hypothetical Patient Scenarios
| Scenariosa With Responses and Rationaleb | No. Respondents | % |
|---|---|---|
| S1: Nonprogressive spastic diplegia after premature birth | ||
| Would diagnose CP | 316 | 96 |
| Would not diagnose CP | 14 | 4 |
| R1: additional imaging required | 9 | 3 |
| R2: alternate diagnosis offered | 4 | 1 |
| S2: Progressive spastic diplegia | ||
| Would diagnose CP | 25 | 8 |
| Would not diagnose CP | 305 | 92 |
| R1: progressive phenotype | 278 | 84 |
| R2: alternate diagnosis offered | 26 | 8 |
| S3: Nonprogressive spastic diplegia with genetic etiology | ||
| Would diagnose CP | 220 | 67 |
| Would not diagnose CP | 110 | 33 |
| R1: genetic | 88 | 27 |
| R2: practical diagnosisc | 7 | 2 |
| S4: Nonprogressive hypotonia with genetic etiology | ||
| Would diagnose CP | 153 | 46 |
| Would not diagnose CP | 177 | 54 |
| R1: genetic | 107 | 32 |
| R2: hypotonia | 39 | 12 |
| R3: practical diagnosis | 8 | 2 |
a
Each scenario (S) presented in the survey (Table 1).
b
The respondent provided rationale (R) for not diagnosing CP in each scenario.
c
The respondent indicated they would not typically provide a diagnosis of CP but might consider providing one if it served a practical purpose for the patient (eg, explaining the diagnosis to the school district or gaining access to services).