ArticleJournal of intellectual disabilities : JOID2026
Non-psychologist practitioners' views of cognitive assessment reports: An evaluation of a learning disability child and adolescent mental health service.
Article in Journal of intellectual disabilities : JOID, 2026. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This report details a service evaluation for a learning disability child and adolescent mental health service. The project aimed to explore nonpsychologist healthcare professionals' views of the accessibility and utility of cognitive assessment reports produced in the service. Semistructured interviews were conducted with eight healthcare professionals. Thematic analysis identified three themes: value of reports, readability, and acknowledging multiple audiences, each with supplementary subthemes. The following were recommended: shorter reports; simpler language; examples and recommendations pertinent and applicable to individual clients (supported by the case holder if the assessor is unfamiliar with the client); visual information to support written text; assessor to provide verbal feedback in addition to the written report; main report should contain information most pertinent to families and professionals: the clients' level of functioning/abilities and recommended interventions, whilst the appendix should contain supplementary information such as scoring and performance on individual subtests.
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.