ArticleBMJ open2022
Study protocol: a mixed-methods study to evaluate which health visiting models in England are most promising for mitigating the harms of adverse childhood experiences.
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.
- How are proportionate universalist services affected by resource constraint in practice? Exploring implementation challenges using a synthesis of four health visiting studies in England.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2026Article
- How should policymakers, funders, and research teams mobilize to build the evidence base on universal early years services?Primary health care research & development · 2024Article
- Can administrative data be used to research health visiting in England? A completeness assessment of the Community Services Dataset.International journal of population data science · 2024Article
- Local area variation in health visiting contacts across England for children under age 5: a cross-sectional analysis of administrative data in England 2018-2020.International journal of population data science · 2024Article
- 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
12 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionExposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) is associated with poorer health outcomes throughout life. In England, health visiting is a long-standing, nationally implemented service that aims to prevent and mitigate the impact of adversity in early childhood, including for children exposed to ACEs. A range of health visiting service delivery practices exist across England (from the minimum five recommended contacts to tailored intensive interventions), but there is a lack of evidence on who receives what services, how this varies across local authorities (LAs) and the associated outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will integrate findings from analysis of individual-level, deidentified administrative data related to hospital admissions (Hospital Episode Statistics (HES)) and health visiting contacts (Community Services Data Set (CSDS)), aggregate LA-level data, in-depth case studies in up to six LAs (including interviews with mothers), a national survey of health visiting services, and workshops with stakeholders and experts by experience. We will use an empirical-to-conceptual approach to develop a typology of health visiting service delivery in England, starting with a data-driven classification generated from latent class analysis of CSDS-HES data, which will be refined based on all other available qualitative and quantitative data. We will then evaluate which models of health visiting are most promising for mitigating the impact of ACEs on child and maternal outcomes using CSDS-HES data for a cohort of children born on 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2019. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University College London Institute of Education Research Ethics Committee approved this study. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and summaries will be provided to key stakeholders including the funders, policy-makers, local commissioners and families.
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.