ArticleHeliyon2024
Investigating child-facing practitioners' understanding of adversity and its impact on children's development and service provision.
Article in Heliyon, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adversity during childhood is a common risk factor for poorer outcomes across physical, mental, and social health. Despite growing evidence and policy around preventing adversity and its sequalae, the incidence of adversity in childhood remains high. Child-facing practitioners (CfPs) may be well-placed to identify adversity and address its impact on children. This study investigated the understanding of adversity and current practice of CfPs working in the Education system, Healthcare and Social Care in England. An anonymous online survey was completed by 113 CfPs between April and June 2022. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. Participating CfPs' reported using a range of assessment tools and direct observation, but there was a lack of consistency in the extent to which different types of adversity were explored in assessments. CfPs working in the Education system and Healthcare reported only liaising with Social Care services when a current worker was known to be involved with the family, or to make a referral. Indeed, a quarter of respondents from the Education system and Healthcare only considered early life experiences when capacity allowed. Over half of the CfPs in this survey 'did not know' or 'did not agree' that public services offer interventions to support families experiencing domestic abuse, parental mental health difficulties and addiction, or the impact of these adversities on children's wellbeing. The study highlights that CfPs could benefit from further training about the prevalence and impact of adversity to inform service delivery. A review of CfPs' routine assessments is needed to ensure that children's exposure to adversity is routinely identified; this will facilitate families to access appropriate support to mitigate the impact of such experiences.
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.