Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26047950›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2015

Early years interventions to improve child health and wellbeing: what works, for whom and in what circumstances? Protocol for a realist review.

Emma Coles, Helen Cheyne, Brigid Daniel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Emma ColesNursing Midwifery & Allied Health Professions Research Unit (NMAHP-RU), Scion House, University of Stirling Innovation Park, FK9 4NF, Stirling, UK. emma.coles@stir.ac.uk.
Helen CheyneNursing Midwifery & Allied Health Professions Research Unit (NMAHP-RU), Scion House, University of Stirling Innovation Park, FK9 4NF, Stirling, UK. h.l.cheyne@stir.ac.uk.
Brigid DanielSchool of Applied Social Science, University of Stirling, Colin Bell Building, FK9 4NF, Stirling, UK. b.m.daniel@stir.ac.uk.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZH/4/417Chief Scientist Office NMAHP2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChild health and wellbeing is influenced by multiple factors, all of which can impact on early childhood development. Adverse early life experiences can have lasting effects across the life course, sustaining inequalities and resulting in negative consequences for the health and wellbeing of individuals and society. The potential to influence future outcomes via early intervention is widely accepted; there are numerous policy initiatives, programmes and interventions clustered around the early years theme, resulting in a broad and disparate evidence base. Existing reviews have addressed the effectiveness of early years interventions, yet there is a knowledge gap regarding the mechanisms underlying why interventions work in given contexts. METHODS/

designThis realist review seeks to address the question 'what works, for whom and in what circumstances?' in terms of early years interventions to improve child health and wellbeing. The review will be conducted following Pawson's five-stage iterative realist methodology: (1) clarify scope, (2) search for evidence, (3) appraise primary studies and extract data, (4) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions and (5) disseminate findings. The reviewers will work with stakeholders in the early stages to refine the focus of the review, create a review framework and build programme theory. Searches for primary evidence will be conducted iteratively. Data will be extracted and tested against the programme theory. A review collaboration group will oversee the review process. DISCUSSION: The review will demonstrate how early years interventions do or do not work in different contexts and with what outcomes and effects. Review findings will be written up following the RAMESES guidelines and will be disseminated via a report, presentations and peer-reviewed publications. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015017832.

Indexed as

Child HealthEarly Intervention, EducationalResearch DesignChildCooperative BehaviorHumansSocioeconomic FactorsSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID26047950
PMCPMC4464136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.