ArticleBMJ open2021
Delivery of a multi-focus public health intervention in the paediatric emergency department: a feasibility and acceptability pilot study.
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 2 papers.
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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- Are child health information services a viable source of accurate vaccination data for clinicians working in paediatric emergency departments in England?BMJ health & care informatics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe objective was to see if it was feasible and acceptable to deliver a brief public health intervention as part of an attendance at the paediatric emergency department (PED).
designA feasibility and acceptability pilot design was used as there is no previous work done in this clinical area, population or using this approach in children and young people (CYP). Quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Follow-up was at 1 week and 1, 3 and 6 months.
settingThis pilot took place in a single PED in Greater Manchester, England.
participantsParticipants were CYP (under 16 years old) and their parents/carers, attending the PED during a 2-week recruitment period in September 2019.
interventionsThe intervention was a brief conversation with a Consultant in Paediatric Public Health Medicine, using Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment. The intervention focused on vaccination, dental health, household smoking and frequent attendance. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was information to support the effective development of a larger-scale study. Secondary outcomes were measures of health, again intended to provide additional information prior to a larger study.
resultsThirty CYP were recruited from 29 households. Sixty per cent of CYP triggered at least one screening question, most commonly household smoking and dental health. It was not possible to accurately assess frequent attendance and 97% of parents/carers stated that they thought their child or young person was fully vaccinated for their age, which is likely to be an over-estimate.
conclusionsIt is feasible to deliver a brief public health intervention in the PED and such an approach is acceptable to a variety of stakeholders including CYP, parents/carers and nursing staff. The pilot revealed issues around data quality and access. Future work will focus on vaccination and dental health.
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.