Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34452966›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Process evaluation of co-designed interventions to improve communication of positive newborn bloodspot screening results.

Jane Chudleigh, Pru Holder, Louise Moody, Alan Simpson, Kevin Southern, Stephen Morris, Francesco Fusco, Fiona Ulph, Mandy Bryon, James R Bonham and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Newborn Screening by Genomic Sequencing: Opportunities and Challenges.International journal of neonatal screening · 2022
    Article
  19. 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

11 authors.

Jane ChudleighSchool of Health Sciences, City University of London, London, UK j.chudleigh@city.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-7334-8708
Pru HolderSchool of Health Sciences, City University of London, London, UK.
Louise MoodyCentre for Arts, Memory and Communities, Coventry University, Coventry, West Midlands, UK.
Alan SimpsonHealth Services and Population Research, King's College London, London, UK.
Kevin SouthernPaediatrics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK.
Stephen MorrisPrimary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5828-3563
Francesco FuscoDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Fiona UlphDivision of Psychology and Mental Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Mandy BryonPaediatric Psychology and Play Services, Great Ormond Street Hospital For Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
James R BonhamPharmacy, Diagnostics and Genetics, Sheffield Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK.
Ellinor OlanderSchool of Health Sciences, City University of London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo implement and evaluate co-designed interventions to improve communication of positive newborn bloodspot screening results and make recommendations for future research and practice.

designA process evaluation underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory.

settingThree National Health Service provider organisations in England.

participantsTwenty-four healthcare professionals (7 newborn screening laboratory staff and 24 clinicians) and 18 parents were interviewed.

interventionsThree co-designed interventions were implemented in practice: standardised laboratory proformas, communication checklists and an email/letter template. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Acceptability and feasibility of the co-designed interventions.

resultsAuditing the implementation of these interventions revealed between 58%-76% of the items on the laboratory proforma and 43%-80% of items on the communication checklists were completed. Interviews with healthcare professionals who had used the interventions in practice provided positive feedback in relation to the purpose of the interventions and the ease of completion both of which were viewed as enhancing communication of positive newborn bloodspot screening results. Interviews with parents highlighted the perceived benefit of the co-designed interventions in terms of consistency, pacing and tailoring of information as well as providing reliable information to families following communication of the positive newborn bloodspot screening result. The process evaluation illuminated organisational and contextual barriers during implementation of the co-designed interventions in practice.

conclusionVariations in communication practices for positive newborn bloodspot screening results continue to exist. The co-designed interventions could help to standardise communication of positive newborn screening results from laboratories to clinicians and from clinicians to parents which in turn could improve parents' experience of receiving a positive newborn bloodspot screening result. Implementation highlighted some organisational and contextual barriers to effective adoption of the co-designed interventions in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15330120.

Indexed as

Neonatal ScreeningState MedicineCommunicationHealth PersonnelHumansInfant, NewbornParentspaediatricspublic healthqualitative research

Identifiers

PMID34452966
PMCPMC8404436

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.