Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33769272›Full record

SynthesisHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2021

Parent-delivered interventions used at home to improve eating, drinking and swallowing in children with neurodisability: the FEEDS mixed-methods study.

Jeremy Parr, Lindsay Pennington, Helen Taylor, Dawn Craig, Christopher Morris, Helen McConachie, Jill Cadwgan, Diane Sellers, Morag Andrew, Johanna Smith and 5 more

Open access · diamondAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Participatory research with carers: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Jeremy ParrPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2507-7878
Lindsay PenningtonPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-4540-2586
Helen TaylorPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2847-9661
Dawn CraigPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5808-0096
Christopher MorrisPeninsula Childhood Disability Research Unit (PenCRU), Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9916-507X
Helen McConachiePopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0713-3987
Jill CadwganEvelina London Children's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, King's Health Partners, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1198-8400
Diane SellersSussex Community NHS Foundation Trust, Chailey Clinical Services, Lewes, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3090-2107
Morag AndrewGreat North Children's Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2532-1655
Johanna SmithPatient and Public Involvement, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1549-0279
Deborah GarlandNational Autistic Society, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3708-4186
Elaine McCollPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8300-3204
Charlotte BuswellGreat North Children's Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7530-7694
Julian ThomasPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6694-0762
Allan ColverPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3623-8729
Newcastle University · GBNewcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBCumbria Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust · GBGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust · GBSussex Community NHS Foundation Trust · GBThe National Autistic Society · GBUniversity of Exeter · GB

Funding

Department of Health 15/156/02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEating, drinking and swallowing difficulties are common in young children with neurodisability. These difficulties may lead to inadequate calorie intake, which affects a child's nutrition, growth and general physical health.

objectiveTo examine which interventions are available that can be delivered at home by parents to improve eating, drinking and swallowing in young children with neurodisability and are suitable for investigation in pragmatic trials.

designThis was a mixed-methods study that included focus groups, surveys, an update of published systematic reviews of interventions, a systematic review of measurement properties of existing tools, evidence mapping, evidence synthesis, a Delphi survey and stakeholder workshops.

settingThe study was carried out in NHS hospitals, community services, family homes and schools.

participantsParents of children who had neurodisability and eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties. Professionals from health and education. Young people with eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties or young people who had previously experienced eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties. DATA SOURCES: Literature reviews; national surveys of parents and professionals; focus groups with parents, young people and professionals; and stakeholder consultation workshops. REVIEW

methodsAn update of published systematic reviews of interventions (searched July-August 2017), a mapping review (searched October 2017) and a systematic review of measurement properties using COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology (searched May 2018).

resultsSignificant limitations of the available research evidence regarding interventions and tools to measure outcomes were identified. A total of 947 people participated: 400 parents, 475 health professionals, 62 education professionals and 10 young people. The survey showed the wide range of interventions recommended by NHS health professionals, with parents and professionals reporting variability in the provision of these interventions. Parents and professionals considered 19 interventions as relevant because they modified eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties. Parents and professionals considered 10 outcomes as important to measure (including Nutrition, Growth and Health/safety); young people agreed that these were important outcomes. Stakeholder consultation workshops identified that project conclusions and recommendations made sense, were meaningful and were valued by parents and professionals. Parents and health professionals were positive about a proposed Focus on Early Eating, Drinking and Swallowing (FEEDS) toolkit of interventions that, through shared decision-making, could be recommended by health professionals and delivered by families. LIMITATIONS: The national surveys included large numbers of parents and professionals but, as expected, these were not representative of the UK population of parents of children with eating, drinking and swallowing difficulties. Owing to the limitations of research evidence, pragmatic decisions were made about interventions that might be included in future research and outcomes that might be measured. For instance, the reviews of research found only weak or poor evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions. The review of outcome measures found only limited low-level evidence about their psychometric properties.

conclusionsOpportunities and challenges for conducting clinical trials of the effectiveness of the FEEDS toolkit of interventions are described. Parents and professionals thought that implementation of the toolkit as part of usual NHS practice was appropriate. However, this would first require the toolkit to be operationalised through development as a complex intervention, taking account of constituent interventions, delivery strategies, implementation and manualisation. Subsequently, an evaluation of its clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness could be undertaken using appropriate research methods. FUTURE WORK: Initial steps include FEEDS toolkit development and evaluation of its use in clinical practice, and identification of the most robust methods to measure valued outcomes, such as Nutrition and Growth.

trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN10454425.

fundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in

Indexed as

DeglutitionParentsAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalCHILDRENDYSPHAGIAEATINGFEEDINGINTERVENTIONSNEURODEVELOPMENTNEURODISABILITYNUTRITION

Identifiers

PMID33769272
PMCPMC8020453
OpenAlexW3137642911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.