ArticleBMJ open2022
Changes in youth care use after the implementation of community-based support teams: repeated measurement study using registry data and data on team characteristics.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. 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.
- Early identification of individual, parent and family related factors associated with different levels of youth care services.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Evaluation of practice nurses' management of paediatric psychosocial problems in general practice.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNew legislation on youth care in the Netherlands led to the implementation of community-based support teams, providing integrated primary youth care. Important aims of the new Youth Act were more integrated, timely care and less use of intensive forms of care. Our aim was to study changes in youth care use in time and the role of newly introduced community-based support teams herein.
settingRegister data (2015-2018) on youth of a large city were linked and combined with administrative and aggregated data on team characteristics.
participantsData on 126 095 youth (0-18 years) were available for analyses. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary, specialised and residential youth care use were the primary outcomes.
resultsGeneralised estimating equations analyses adjusted for individual characteristics demonstrated that over 4 years, use of primary youth care increased from 2.2% to 8.5% (OR 1.70; 99% CI 1.67 to 1.73), specialised youth care decreased from 7.2% to 6.4% (OR 0.98; 99% CI 0.97 to 1.00) and residential youth care increased slightly (OR 1.04; 99% CI 1.01 to 1.06). Gender, age, family status, migrant background and educational level were all associated with the types of youth care use and also with some trends in time. Likelihood to receive care increased in time for preschool and younger children but did not improve for migrant children.Case load, team size, team turnover, team performance and transformational leadership showed significant associations with different types of youth care use but hardly with trends in time.
conclusionPatterns of youth care use changed towards more locally provided primary youth care, slightly less specialised and slightly more residential youth care. Furthermore, youth care use among younger children increased in time. These trends are partly in line with the trends intended by the Youth Act. Little evidence was found for the role of specific team characteristics on changes in youth care use in time.
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.