ArticleBMJ open2022
Identification of models, theoretical design and formal evaluation of integrated specialist community health service provision for the first 2000 days: a protocol for a scoping review.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Design of an Early Year's Intervention With and for the Community: A Needs Assessment and Gap Analysis.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2025Article
- A global scoping review of adaptations in nurturing care interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- "It's research, our input can grow": identifying health research priorities with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities-study protocol.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe first 2000 days of a child's life (during pregnancy up to age 5 years) represent a critical period, in which early interventions reduce risk associated with developmental delay, disability and intergenerational disadvantage. The risk is exacerbated by barriers to specialised early intervention for children and families. This scoping review seeks to contribute to the evidence for sustaining integrated community-based specialist care in these earliest years of a child's life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review framework will be followed. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for screening of literature is predefined, guided by the criteria of population, concept and context. The review will identify models of care delivery, and will identify quality of care outcomes that have been measured, including evidence of reliability and validity. Sources of evidence will include CINAHL, Cochrane databases, Medline, PsycINFO and Scopus. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: In a three-part study, evidence synthesis from the scoping review of the literature; mapping of existing specialist early years services in one community and a consumer consultation (Curtin University Human Research Ethics approval HRE2021-0546) in the same community will inform a model of integrated care that accounts for the context of the community it seeks to serve. Results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, contributing to the evidence base for delivering sustainable community-based integrated care in the context of the first 2000 days. This protocol is specific to the scoping review.
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.