Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39560784›Full record

ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2024

[Early preventive services in Germany-perspectives for future development].

Ute Thyen

Abstract readEnglish AbstractReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Ute ThyenKlinik für Kinder- und Jugendmedizin, Universität zu Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538, Lübeck, Deutschland. Ute.thyen@uni-luebeck.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The future development of early preventive services and intervention depends on structural anchoring, the resources of the professionals working in the field, and utilization and acceptance by the target population. In order to understand the dynamics of the development, this discussion contribution first presents the contemporary historical origins of early intervention in Germany since the beginning of the 20th century. Further sections bring together the bodies of knowledge from various relevant sciences, in particular neuroscientific findings on the early childhood development of the brain, attachment theory, results of family and prevention research, trauma studies, and health economic models on the benefits of social interventions. From this, requirements for the further growth of the early intervention system are derived. These can be conceptually classified as a "Health in all Policies" strategy (with a particular focus on combating child poverty) combined with interprofessional learning and collaboration, inclusive access for all children, and diversity-friendliness as characteristics of good process quality. To further develop and expand early interventions, proof of benefits must be carefully planned and implemented through long-term, interdisciplinary research programs in the aforementioned fields of knowledge through independent research funding. The complex methods for evaluating complex interventions at the individual level, subgroups, and the entire population, including health economic effects and participatory and qualitative empirical research, are partly available and should be further developed.

Indexed as

ForecastingChildChild Health ServicesChild, PreschoolEarly Intervention, EducationalFemaleGermanyHumansInfantInfant, NewbornMalePreventive Health ServicesEarly childhood developmentFamily supportHealth promotionPublic healthWelfare policy

Identifiers

PMID39560784
PMCPMC11615113

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.