Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37001969›Full record

ReviewArchives of disease in childhood2023

Identifying opportunities for upstream evaluations relevant to child and maternal health: a UK policy-mapping review.

Emma Stewart, Anna Pearce, Joanne Given, Ruth Gilbert, Sinead Brophy, Richard Cookson, Pia Hardelid, Katie L Harron, Alastair Leyland, Rachael Wood and 1 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of disease in childhood, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Article
  5. Achieving equity in reproductive care and birth outcomes for Black people in Canada.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Emma StewartMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Emma.Stewart@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-4447-9522
Anna PearceMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0085-5263
Joanne GivenSchool of Nursing and Paramedic Science, Ulster University, Coleraine, Londonderry, UK.
Ruth GilbertPopulation, Policy and Practice Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
Sinead BrophySchool of Medicine, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.
Richard CooksonCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, North Yorkshire, UK.
Pia HardelidPopulation, Policy and Practice Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0154-1306
Katie L HarronPopulation, Policy and Practice Department, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3418-2856
Alastair LeylandMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Rachael WoodPublic Health Scotland, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4453-623X
Ruth DundasMRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SPHSU17Department of Health 17/99/19Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2Medical Research Council MR/S037608/1Wellcome Trust 205412/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveInterventions to tackle the social determinants of health can improve outcomes during pregnancy and early childhood, leading to better health across the life course. Variation in content, timing and implementation of policies across the 4 UK nations allows for evaluation. We conducted a policy-mapping review (1981-2021) to identify relevant UK early years policies across the social determinants of health framework, and determine suitable candidates for evaluation using administrative data.

methodsWe used open keyword and category searches of UK and devolved Government websites, and hand searched policy reviews. Policies were rated and included using five criteria: (1) Potential for policy to affect maternal and child health outcomes; (2) Implementation variation across the UK; (3) Population reach and expected effect size; (4) Ability to identify exposed/eligible group in administrative data; (5) Potential to affect health inequalities. An expert consensus workshop determined a final shortlist.

results336 policies and 306 strategy documents were identified. Policies were mainly excluded due to criteria 2-4, leaving 88. The consensus workshop identified three policy areas as suitable candidates for natural experiment evaluation using administrative data: pregnancy grants, early years education and childcare, and Universal Credit.

conclusionOur comprehensive policy review identifies valuable opportunities to evaluate sociostructural impacts on mother and child outcomes. However, many potentially impactful policies were excluded. This may lead to the inverse evidence law, where there is least evidence for policies believed to be most effective. This could be ameliorated by better access to administrative data, staged implementation of future policies or alternative evaluation methods.

Indexed as

Maternal HealthPolicyChild CareChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansPregnancyUnited Kingdomchild developmentchild health

Identifiers

PMID37001969
PMCPMC10314013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.