Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37019495›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Study protocol: evaluation of the 0-5 public health investment in England - a mixed-methods study integrating analyses of national linked administrative data with in-depth case studies.

Katie Harron, Francesca L Cavallaro, Catherine Bunting, Amanda Clery, Sally Kendall, Rebecca Cassidy, Julie Atkins, Eirini-Christina Saloniki, Helen Bedford, Jenny Woodman

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors.

Katie HarronUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK k.harron@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-3418-2856
Francesca L CavallaroThe Health Foundation, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9641-8780
Catherine BuntingUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8018-4895
Amanda CleryUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7366-9982
Sally KendallCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2507-0350
Rebecca CassidyCentre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK.
Julie AtkinsCare City, London, UK.
Eirini-Christina SalonikiDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Helen BedfordUCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Jenny WoodmanSocial Research Institute, UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9403-4177

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionHealth visiting is a long-established, nationally implemented programme that works with other services at a local level to improve the health and well-being of children and families. To maximise the impact and efficiency of the health visiting programme, policy-makers and commissioners need robust evidence on the costs and benefits of different levels and types of health visiting, for different families, in different local contexts. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-methods study will analyse individual-level health visiting data for 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 linked with longitudinal data from children's social care, hospitals and schools to estimate the association of number and type of health visiting contacts with a range of children and maternal outcomes. We will also use aggregate local authority data to estimate the association between local models of health visiting and area-level outcomes. Outcomes will include hospitalisations, breast feeding, vaccination, childhood obesity and maternal mental health. Where possible, outcomes will be valued in monetary terms, and we will compare total costs to total benefits of different health visiting service delivery models. Qualitative case studies and extensive stakeholder input will help explain the quantitative analyses and interpret the results in the context of local policy, practice and circumstance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University College London Research Ethics Committee approved this study (ref 20561/002). Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and findings will be shared and debated with national policy-makers, commissioners and managers of health visiting services, health visitors and parents.

Indexed as

Pediatric ObesityPublic HealthChildEnglandFamilyHumansParentsCommunity child healthHealth economicsHealth policyPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID37019495
PMCPMC10083857

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.