Observational studyBMJ open2016
Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Salut Programme: a universal health promotion intervention for parents and children-protocol of a register-based retrospective observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Health and economic outcomes of a universal early intervention for parents and children from birth to age five: evaluation of the Salut Programme using a natural experiment.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023Article
- The equity impact of a universal child health promotion programme.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2020Review
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere is inadequate evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of health promotion interventions. The Salut Programme aims to reach all parents and children in the Västerbotten County of Sweden with a combination of health promotion interventions initiated during pregnancy and continued over the childhood period. This study protocol describes an effectiveness study and an economic evaluation study, where the ongoing Salut Programme is compared to care-as-usual over the periods of pregnancy, delivery and the child's first 2 years of life.
methodsA register-based retrospective observational study design will be used with existing data sources with respect to exposures and outcomes. Outcomes of interest are clustered at 3 points: around the child's birth, 1 month after the child's birth and 2 years after the child's birth. We will simulate an experiment by retrospectively identifying and comparing children and their parents in the geographical areas where the Salut Programme was implemented since 2006 and onwards, and the areas where the Programme was not implemented before 2009. Outcomes will be analysed and compared for the premeasure period, and the postmeasure period for both groups. Our analysis combines difference-in-difference estimation with matching. A complementary analysis will be carried out on the longitudinal subsample of mothers who gave birth at least once during each of the time periods. The economic evaluation aims to capture the wider societal costs and benefits of the Salut Programme for the first 2 years of the children's lives. Incremental costs will be compared with incremental health gains and the results will be presented as a cost-consequence analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Regional Ethical Review Board in Umeå has given clearance for the Salut Programme research (2010-63-31M). No individual's identity will be revealed when presenting results. This study will provide information that can guide decision-makers to allocate resources optimally.
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.