ArticleArchives of disease in childhood2025
Developing a toolkit to support parents' involvement in child death review: an experience-based co-design study.
Article in Archives of disease in childhood, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evaluating co-design approaches with parents in paediatric healthcare: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Shared principles, local practice: an international survey of child death review systems.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Needs and experiences of families after a sudden unexplained death in childhood: a qualitative study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
- Family Involvement in Learning From Expected Child Deaths: A Qualitative Study of UK Parents.Child: care, health and development · 2025Article
- Child death review: understanding variations in practice using normalisation process theory.BMJ paediatrics open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding why children die is important for grieving parents and for informing system improvements aimed at prevention and future care. Many countries have child death review (CDR) process, but little is known about how best to engage parents. The aim of this study was to use experience-based co-design to create a toolkit to support parental involvement in CDR.
methodsA survey of English paediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and palliative care services explored practices and identified a diverse sample of sites for professional interviews. Bereaved parents were recruited through charities, hospitals and social media. Semistructured interviews were held with parents and professionals followed by co-design workshops to develop the toolkit.
resultsThere were 29 survey responses, 13 out of 21 from PICUs and 16 out of 34 from palliative care.21 multidisciplinary healthcare professionals were interviewed.23 bereaved parents of children who died aged 0-18 years in 2021-2022, either during hospital admission or under palliative care were, interviewed.10 parents and 23 professionals participated in co-design meetings. Key emotional touchpoints identified from parents' experiences were: becoming aware of CDR meetings, being asked for input, knowing the date and receiving feedback. All agreed on the importance of involving parents, with clear communication, and need for resources and training for key workers.The toolkit includes training videos, a standardised pathway including template letters, feedback form, easy-read leaflet and an animation explaining the importance of involving parents.
conclusionsCo-design has successfully supported the development of a toolkit of resources in a sensitive area. It required considerable support from bereavement support organisations and researchers. Future evaluation is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14790455.
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.