SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
Healthcare professionals' understanding of children's rights: a systematic review of the empirical evidence-base.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 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.
- A Systematic Review on Children's Participation in Healthcare From a Child's Perspective.Scandinavian journal of caring sciences · 2025Pooled it
- When the Child Is Not Heard: Children's Rights and Epistemic Injustice in Paediatric Nursing Practice.Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals · 2026Article
- How Often Are Hospitalised Children Physically Restrained During Painful and Stressful Procedures?Journal of clinical nursing · 2026Observational
- Assessing the Implementation and Awareness of Children's Rights in Pediatric Hospital: A Comparative Study of Parents' and Children's Perspectives.Pediatric reports · 2025Article
- "Fox-like. One eye open, one eye closed": child supervision among Syrian refugee mothers in Canada.Frontiers in psychology · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe concept of children's rights emerged during the 1980s and emphasised the role of children as active participants in matters which concern them.
aimThis review aims to identify and synthesise the empirical evidence base on healthcare professionals' (HCPs) understanding of children's rights.
methodsFive electronic databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science) were systematically searched in May 2023. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to quality appraise full-text papers included in the review. A descriptive narrative synthesis of the studies' findings was performed.
resultsA total of 15 relevant studies from 10 countries were identified and included in the review. The number of participants included ranged from 6 to 1048 for HCPs with a broad range of sampling methods. Based on the narrative synthesis of the included studies, three main themes were identified: (1) Barriers to implementing children's rights in healthcare, (2) Factors that contribute to children's rights implementation, and (3) Study instruments used to measure outcomes.
conclusionsHCPs require a better understanding of children's rights to implement these rights into practice. Listening to children, building trusting relationships with children, and continuing professional development of HCPs could help to address barriers to understanding children's rights. There is a pressing need for the development of a tool that is capable of tracking changes in the understanding of children's rights in healthcare environments as efforts to increase awareness become more widely recognised.
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.