ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2025
Child death review: understanding variations in practice using normalisation process theory.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Family Involvement in Learning From Expected Child Deaths: A Qualitative Study of UK Parents.Child: care, health and development · 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
backgroundIn England, Child Death Review (CDR) is a statutory process designed to identify full reasons for death, support parents, improve care and save lives. At CDR meetings, professionals review care and identify learning. Although parents do not attend CDR meetings, they should be invited to contribute questions and feedback and be informed of outcomes. There is a lack of evidence to support implementation, particularly for families after an expected child death.
objectiveTo examine how parent involvement in CDR is operationalised currently, following expected child death, to support improvements in practice.
methodsA secure online questionnaire was developed to collect data on parental CDR involvement in hospitals and palliative care services in England. Semistructured interviews were undertaken during 2022-2023, with 21 professionals in five care settings, purposively sampled from the survey to include sites with different provision contexts. Quantitative data were analysed using basic descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analysed using directed qualitative content analysis and through a conceptual lens of Normalisation Process Theory.
resultsQuestionnaires were completed by 13 Paediatric Intensive Care Units and 16 palliative care services. 25/29 (86%) held CDR meetings reflecting statutory guidance, 17/29 (59%) routinely informed parents about CDR and 10/29 (28%) shared outcomes with them. Interviews with 21 professionals revealed that despite valuing CDR, many struggled to implement the process and lacked confidence to involve parents. Professionals felt that parents need good bereavement support to be able to contribute and wanted resources to help inform parents about CDR and support their involvement. Enthusiastic leaders were important. Lack of funding, particularly for CDR and bereavement keyworkers, was a challenge.
conclusions
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.