SynthesisJournal of pediatric psychology2020
A Systematic Review of External Validity in Pediatric Integrated Primary Care Trials.
Synthesis in Journal of pediatric psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Creation of the Youth Integration Project Framework: A Narrative Synthesis of the Youth Mental Health Integrated Care Literature.International journal of integrated careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to conduct a systematic review of external validity reporting in integrated primary care (IPC) interventions for mental health concerns.
methodsWe searched Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials, and relevant literature to identify publications from 1998 to 2018 reporting on open, randomized, or quasi-randomized trials of IPC interventions that targeted child (ages 0-18 years) psychological symptoms. For each publication, we extracted the information reported in each RE-AIM domain and calculated the proportion of the total studies reviewed.
resultsThirty-nine publications describing 25 studies were included in the review. Publications rarely reported some indicators of external validity, including the representativeness of participants (12%), rate of adoption clinics or providers (16%), cost of implementation (8%), or evidence of maintenance (16%). Few studies reported on key pragmatic factors such as cost or organizational change processes related to implementation and maintenance. Strengths of some studies included comparisons of multiple active treatments, use of tailorable interventions, and implementation in "real world" settings.
conclusionsAlthough IPC interventions appear efficacious under research conditions, there are significant knowledge gaps regarding the degree to which they reach and engage target recipients, what factors impact adoption and implementation of IPC interventions by clinicians, how fidelity can be maintained over time, and cost-effectiveness. Pediatric IPC researchers should embrace dissemination and implementation science methods to balance internal and external validity concerns moving forward.
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.