Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2003
Effectiveness of out-of-home day care for disadvantaged families: randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Centre-based day care for children younger than five years of age in high-income countries.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Article
- Recommendations for equitable COVID-19 pandemic recovery in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effects of providing daycare facilities for young children on the health and welfare of disadvantaged families.
designRandomised controlled trial. Eligible children from the application list to a daycare facility were randomly allocated to receive a daycare place or not.
settingEarly Years daycare centre in Borough of Hackney, London.
participants120 mothers and 143 eligible children (aged between 6 months and 3.5 years).
interventionA place at the centre, which provided high quality day care. Control families used other child care that they secured for themselves.
main outcome measuresMaternal paid employment, household income, child health and development.
resultsAt 18 months' follow up, 67% of intervention group mothers and 60% of control group mothers were in paid employment (adjusted risk ratio 1.23 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.52)), but were no more likely to have a weekly household income of above pound 200 (risk ratio 0.88 (0.70 to 1.09)). Intervention group children had more otitis media with effusion (risk ratio 1.74 (1.02 to 2.96)) and used more health services (1.58 (1.05 to 2.38)), but both estimates were imprecise.
conclusionThe provision of child day care may have increased maternal employment, but it did not seem to increase household income. The results suggest that providing day care may be insufficient as a strategy to reduce poverty. The study shows how random allocation can be used to ration and evaluate interventions where demand exceeds supply.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.