ArticleBMC family practice2012
General practitioner provision of preventive child health care: analysis of routine consultation data.
Article in BMC family practice, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Harnessing routinely collected data for the evaluation of early years interventions: insights from a scoping review of evaluation studies.International journal of population data science · 2026Article
- Transitions from short to long-term outcomes in pediatric critical care: considerations for clinical practice.Translational pediatrics · 2021Review
- What effect do point of care fees have on childhood consultations in general practice?BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Healthcare use for children with complex needs: using routine health data linked to a multiethnic, ongoing birth cohort.BMJ open · 2018Observational
- A cross-sectional pilot study of the Scottish early development instrument: a tool for addressing inequality.BMC public health · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGPs contribute to preventive child health care in various ways, including provision of child health surveillance (CHS) reviews, opportunistic preventive care, and more intensive support to vulnerable children. The number of CHS reviews offered in Scotland was reduced from 2005. This study aimed to quantify GPs' provision of different types of preventive care to pre-school children before and after the changes to the CHS system.
methodsGP consultation rates with children aged 0-4 years were examined for the 2½ years before and after the changes to the CHS system using routinely available data from 30 practices in Scotland. Consultations for CHS reviews; other aspects of preventive care; and all reasons were considered.
resultsPrior to the changes to the CHS system, GPs often contributed to CHS reviews at 6-8 weeks and 8-9 and 39-42 months. Following the changes, GP provision of the 6-8 week review continued but other reviews essentially ceased. Few additional consultations with pre-school children are recorded as involving other aspects of preventive care, and the changes to CHS have had no impact on this. In the 2½ years before and after the changes, consultations recorded as involving any form of preventive care accounted for 11% and 7.5% respectively of all consultations with children aged 0-4 years, with the decline due to reductions in CHS reviews.
conclusionsEffective preventive care through the early years can help children secure good health and developmental outcomes. GPs are well placed to contribute to the provision of such care. Consultations focused on preventive care form a small minority of GPs' contacts with pre-school children, however, particularly since the reduction in the number of CHS reviews.
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.