Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34819278›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Children and Young People's Health Partnership Evelina London Model of Care: economic evaluation protocol of a complex system change.

Marina Soley-Bori, Raghu Lingam, Rose-Marie Satherley, Julia Forman, Lizzie Cecil, Julia Fox-Rushby, Ingrid Wolfe

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
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. It is linked to trial NCT03461848 (The Children and Young People's Health Partnership), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT03461848 nacompletednot on this map

The Children and Young People's Health Partnership (CYPHP) Evelina London Model of Care: An Opportunistic Cluster Randomised Evaluation to Assess Child Health Outcomes, Healthcare Quality, and Health Service Use.

TypeinterventionalSponsorGuy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation TrustRan2018 to 2022Enrolled1,731ConditionsAsthma, Eczema, ConstipationArmsCYPHP Evelina London Model of care, Enhanced Usual Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Marina Soley-BoriDepartment of Population Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK marina.soley_bori@kcl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-8348-3575
Raghu LingamSchool of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales Faculty of Medicine, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Rose-Marie SatherleyDepartment of Psychological Interventions, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Julia FormanDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, King's College London, London, UK.
Lizzie CecilDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5281-6656
Julia Fox-RushbyPopulation Health Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Ingrid WolfeDepartment of Women's and Children's Health, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe Children and Young People's Health Partnership (CYPHP) Evelina London Model of Care is a new approach to integrated care delivery for children and young people (CYP) with common health complaints and chronic conditions. CYPHP includes population health management (services shaped by data-driven understanding of population and individual needs, applied in this case to enable proactive case finding and tailored biopsychosocial care), specialist clinics with multidisciplinary health teams and training resources for professionals working with CYP. This complex health system strengthening programme has been implemented in South London since April 2018 and will be evaluated using a cluster randomised controlled trial with an embedded process evaluation. This protocol describes the within-trial and beyond-trial economic evaluation of CYPHP. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The economic evaluation will identify, measure and value resources and health outcome impacts of CYPHP compared with enhanced usual care from a National Health Service/Personal Social Service and a broader societal perspective. The study population includes 90 000 CYP under 16 years of age in 23 clusters (groups of general practitioner (GP) practices) to assess health service use and costs, with more detailed cost-effectiveness analysis of a targeted sample of 2138 CYP with asthma, eczema or constipation (tracer conditions). For the cost-effectiveness analysis, health outcomes will be measured using the Paediatric Quality of Life Inventory and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) using the Child Health Utility 9 Dimensions (CHU-9D) measure. To account for changes in parental well-being, the Warwick-Edinburg Mental Well-being Scale will be integrated with QALYs in a cost-benefit analysis. The within-trial economic evaluation will be complemented by a novel long-term model that expands the analytical horizon to 10 years. Analyses will adhere to good practice guidelines and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence public health reference case. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from South West-Cornwall and Plymouth Research Ethics Committee (REC Reference: 17/SW/0275). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals, made available in briefing papers for local decision-makers, and provided to the local community through website and public events. Findings will be generalisable to community-based models of care, especially in urban settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03461848.

Indexed as

Child HealthQuality of LifeAdolescentChildCost-Benefit AnalysisHumansLondonRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicState Medicinehealth economicshealth policypaediatrics

Identifiers

PMID34819278
PMCPMC8614147

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.