ArticleBMC health services research2024
Development of an outcome indicator framework for a universal health visiting programme using routinely collected data.
Article in BMC health services research, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUniversal health visiting has been a cornerstone of preventative healthcare for children in the United Kingdom (UK) for over 100 years. In 2016, Scotland introduced a new Universal Health Visiting Pathway (UHVP), involving a greater number of contacts with a particular emphasis on the first year, visits within the home setting, and rigorous developmental assessment conducted by a qualified Health Visitor. To evaluate the UHVP, an outcome indicator framework was developed using routine administrative data. This paper sets out the development of these indicators.
methodsA logic model was produced with stakeholders to define the group of outcomes, before further refining and aligning of the measures through discussions with stakeholders and inspection of data. Power calculations were carried out and initial data described for the chosen indicators.
resultsEighteen indicators were selected across eight outcome areas: parental smoking, breastfeeding, immunisations, dental health, developmental concerns, obesity, accidents and injuries, and child protection interventions. Data quality was mixed. Coverage of reviews was high; over 90% of children received key reviews. Individual item completion was more variable: 92.2% had breastfeeding data at 6-8 weeks, whilst 63.2% had BMI recorded at 27-30 months. Prevalence also varied greatly, from 1.3% of children's names being on the Child Protection register for over six months by age three, to 93.6% having received all immunisations by age two.
conclusionsHome visiting services play a key role in ensuring children and families have the right support to enable the best start in life. As these programmes evolve, it is crucial to understand whether changes lead to improvements in child outcomes. This paper describes a set of indicators using routinely-collected data, lessening additional burden on participants, and reducing response bias which may be apparent in other forms of evaluation. Further research is needed to explore the transferability of this indicator framework to other settings.
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.