ArticleBMC pediatrics2022
The effect of different service models on quality of care in the assessment of autism spectrum disorder in children: study protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is significant variability in clinical pathways available in the diagnostic assessment of ASD, including the order and timing of allied health assessments in relation to paediatrician consultations. Allied health professionals in first-contact models are increasingly used to improve the timeliness of healthcare access, whilst complementing medical specialty workforce shortages. Anecdotally, the implementation of allied health first-contact models in paediatrics has improved waitlists and timely access to healthcare. However, no rigorous studies have been conducted to evaluate the outcomes of these models. This study aims to determine the impacts of an allied health first-contact model on health service use and costs and patient quality of life and satisfaction.
methodsAn open, semi-blinded, multi-centre randomised controlled trial in paediatric outpatient clinics at two Australian metropolitan public hospitals. 56 children (0-16 years) fulfilling the inclusion criteria will be randomised to one of two clinical pathways for assessment of ASD: (1) allied health first-contact or (2) medical first-contact model. Cost outcomes will be collected from both health service and family perspectives. Caregiver-reported outcome measures include: Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL), the EuroQOL Five Dimension Youth Version (EQ-5D-Y), the Autism Family Experience Questionnaire (AFEQ) and Measure of Processes of Care. DISCUSSION: Evidence of improvements in service and consumer centric outcomes will help inform the development and implementation of high-value, evidenced based models of care for the assessment of ASD in children. The findings from this study are expected to contribute to the evidence base around the costs and consequences of allied health first contact models for the assessment of children with ASD in the Australian setting. Findings of this study may help to inform the allocation of health care resources while maintaining, or potentially improving, patient and family quality of life and experience of care. These findings may be useful in informing the wider adoption of these models in Australia and internationally, particularly in healthcare settings where medical specialist shortages exist.
trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR) ACTRN12621001433897 . Registered: 25
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.