Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17253525›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2007

Family-centred care for children in hospital.

L Shields, J Pratt, L M Davis, J Hunter

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Family-centred care for hospitalised children aged 0-12 years.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012
    Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Who decides? Shared decision-making among colorectal cancer surgery patients in China.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Families and health-care professionals' perspectives and expectations of family-centred care: hidden expectations and unclear roles.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

L ShieldsUniversity of Hull, Faculty of Health and Social Care, Cottingham Rd, Hull, UK, HU6 7RX. L.Shields@hull.ac.uk
J Pratt
L M Davis
J Hunter

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFamily-centred care (FCC) is a widely used model in paediatrics, and is felt instinctively to be the best way to provide care to children in hospital. However, its effectiveness has not been measured.

objectivesThe primary objective of this review was to assess the effects of family-centred models of care for hospitalised children when compared to standard or professionally-centred models of care, on child, family and health service outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched: MEDLINE (1966 to February 2004); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2004); CINAHL (1982 to February 2004); PsycINFO (1972 to February 2004); ERIC (1982 to February 2004); Sociological Abstracts (1963 to February 2004); Social Work Abstracts (1977 to February 2004); and AMI (Australasian Medical Index) (1966 to February 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials including cluster randomised trials and controlled clinical trials (CCTs), and controlled before and after studies (CBAs), in which family-centred care models are compared with professionally-centred models of care for hospitalised children (aged up to 12 years). Studies also had to meet criteria for family-centredness and methodological quality. In order to assess studies for the degree of family-centredness, this review utilised a modified rating scale based on a validated instrument. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors undertook the searches, and three authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN

resultsNo studies met inclusion criteria, and hence no analysis could be undertaken. Five studies came close to inclusion. Three of these studies were excluded primarily because of inadequate or unclear blinding of outcome assessment, while for one study the age group was outside the parameters of this review. One study met most criteria, but the children were aged up to 18 years. We contacted the study authors who kindly provided a subset analysis, but on further examination the study also proved to have inadequate blinding procedures and so was not included. It was not possible to undertake any subset analysis of populations. Of the other studies identified through the search, 13 met some of the inclusion criteria but were reports of qualitative research and are reviewed elsewhere. AUTHORS'

conclusionsThis review has highlighted the dearth of high quality quantitative research about family-centred care. A much more stringent examination of the use of family-centred care as a model for care delivery to children and families in health services is needed.

Indexed as

Child, HospitalizedComprehensive Health CareFamilyChildHumansPatient-Centered Care

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.