ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
"
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. 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
Abstract
Introduction: The COVID-19 virus and its relevant prevention protocol had significant impacts on children and youth with special healthcare needs (CYSHCN), including those with physical, intellectual, and developmental disabilities. Previous studies have examined the first year of the pandemic, identifying the implications of social distancing, remote services/education, and masking and testing protocol on the mental, physical, and developmental well-being of this population. Objectives: We focus on moments of transition, when vaccines were disseminated and mandates/resources removed. By identifying how protocol and interventions in these moments included, neglected, or negatively impacted CYSHCN, we can inform more inclusive, safe, and equitable decision-making in future health crises. Methods: We report the transition-moment-related reflections of fourteen focus groups conducted among caregivers (including parents) of CYSHCN between March and December of 2022 ( Results: Caregivers provided transition-moment reflections of how the timing, support, and in/flexibility of pandemic intervention implementation and de-implementation negatively impacted their CYSHCN. We generated three themes to describe these views: (1) " Discussion: CYSHCN needs were neglected in the pandemic's transition moments, creating significant implications for their mental/emotional, physical, and cognitive/developmental well-being. Reflecting these findings, and particularly facets that extend established literature, we urge inclusive research and policy models, empowering members of the CYSHCN community as leaders in knowledge and protocol production, particularly when considering the adaptability and relative advantage of interventions. Such models are crucial in developing messaging around pandemic policies, creating infrastructural support for flexibility, and adding supports and delays when de-implementing mandates.
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.