ArticleBMJ open2023
Health visiting in the UK in light of the COVID-19 pandemic experience (RReHOPE): a realist review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. 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.
- Realist review of managed alcohol programmes for people experiencing alcohol dependence and homelessness: what works, for whom, and in what circumstances?Harm reduction journal · 2026Review
- mHealth interventions for postpartum family planning in LMICs: A realist review.PLOS global public health · 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
introductionHealth visiting services, providing support to under 5s and their families, are organised and delivered in very different ways in different parts of the UK. While there has been attention to the key components of health visiting practice and what works well and how, there is little research on how health visiting services are organised and delivered and how that affects their ability to meet their objectives. The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly disrupted service delivery from March 2020. This realist review aims to synthesise the evidence on changes during the pandemic to identify the potential for improving health visiting services and their delivery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) quality standards and Pawson's five iterative stages to locate existing theories, search for evidence, select literature, extract data, synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. It will be guided by stakeholder engagement with practitioners, commissioners, policymakers, policy advocates and people with lived experience. This approach will consider the emerging strategies and evolving contexts in which the services are delivered, and the varied outcomes for different groups. A realist logic of analysis will be used to make sense of what was happening to health visiting services during and following the pandemic response through the identification and testing of programme theories. Our refined programme theory will then be used to develop recommendations for improving the organisation, delivery and ongoing postpandemic recovery of health visiting services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: General University Ethics Panel approval has been obtained from University of Stirling (reference 7662). Dissemination will build on links to policymakers, commissioners, providers, policy advocates and the public. A range of audiences will be targeted using outputs tailored to each. A final stakeholder event focused on knowledge mobilisation will aid development of recommendations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022343117.
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.