ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2019
Delivery of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in an acute paediatric setting: an audit of information available and service gap analysis.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic literature review on initiatives to involve children and adolescents in evaluating their hospitalization experience.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe United Nations Convention on Children's Rights stresses the importance of providing children with information relating to their health and well-being, yet reports suggest children are offered insufficient support in healthcare environments. We audited the information provided to children and families requiring planned surgical admission in comparison to those admitted acutely to medical paediatrics. Additionally, we identified examples of child-specific information resources in national and international hospitals.
methodsThree approaches were taken to gain insight into practice locally, nationally and internationally.(1) Information resources provided to paediatric inpatients admitted to the acute receiving unit were audited in comparison to information given to children with planned admissions via process observations.(2) Qualitative feedback was gained from play specialists (n=2), families (n=30) and children (n=9; aged 3-15 years) via interviews.(3) A review, including UK, Australian and US hospitals, was conducted to assess child-specific information resources (n=36 hospitals) and to systematically compare the information available on websites (n=9 hospitals).
resultsAt the study site, no child-specific information resources were available for acute admissions, whereas planned admissions were offered significant information face-to-face with supplemental resources. Child, parent and play specialist interviews highlighted gaps in information provision regarding hospital practicalities and processes. Twelve external child-specific resources were identified, for 4-14 year olds, explaining key care information: medical procedures, equipment and staff. These resources could positively respond to the topics cited as lacking by the interviewed patients and families at the study site. International hospital websites provided considerably more in-depth information compared with UK hospitals.
conclusionsThe hospital experience of children and families can be improved by ensuring they are provided with adequate information relating to their hospital stay. It is essential that suitable high-quality resources are consistently available and that feedback from children informs the process of resource development.
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.