Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29730623›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2018

What is usual care for teenagers expecting their first child in England? A process evaluation using key informant mapping and participant survey as part of the Building Blocks randomised controlled trial of specialist home visiting.

Michael Robling, Rebecca Cannings-John, Sue Channon, Kerenza Hood, Gwen Moody, Ria Poole, Julia Sanders

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Michael RoblingCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1004-036X
Rebecca Cannings-JohnCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Sue ChannonCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Kerenza HoodCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Gwen MoodyCentre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Ria PooleSchool of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Julia SandersSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Cardiff University · GBIndiana University School of Medicine

Funding

Cancer Research UK 21801Department of Health 006/0060
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe compared the US-derived Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) home visiting programme when added to usually provided health and social care for first-time teenage mothers, to usual care alone. We aimed to: establish the nature of usual care, measure service usage and assess performance bias in core usual care services.

designWithin trial process evaluation. Local professionals completed a survey mapping local health and social care services in seven domains. This focused on services available to young women, especially those relevant to pregnant teenagers. Descriptive data were assessed thematically to establish the range of services. Quantitative data collection with FNP supervisors enumerated service provision by site. Services identified were included in main participant trial follow-up interviews at four time points to quantify usage. Usage was described descriptively by domain. We explored predictors of health visitor visits.

setting18 partnerships of local authority and healthcare organisations in England. OUTCOMES: Descriptive framework of services. Rates of service usage reported by trial participants.

results161 separate services were identified, with multiple service models in each domain, broadly categorised as universal or specialist (eg, for teenage mothers). FNP supervisors identified 30-63 universal services per site and 22-67 specialist services. Use of core maternity care services was similar across trial arms and with only small differences in use of health visiting services. Participants accessed a wide range of services. Women who had ever been homeless, who had a higher subjectively defined social status, and poorer mental health received more visits from a health visitor.

conclusionsThe large number of services available to teenage mothers in England may limit the incremental benefit achievable through enhanced home visiting. There was little evidence of compensatory practice, such as additional care for women in the usual care arm. Measuring usual care when trialling complex interventions is challenging and essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23019866.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesMaternal Health ServicesNurses, Community HealthPatient Acceptance of Health CarePregnancy in AdolescenceProcess Assessment, Health CareStandard of CareAdolescentDelivery of Health CareEnglandFamily NursingFemaleGovernmentHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMotherschild protectionorganisation of health servicespaediatricspublic health

Identifiers

PMID29730623
PMCPMC5942429
OpenAlexW2801975316

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.