ArticleBMJ open2025
Realist evaluation of Belgian pilot projects for paediatric transmural care: protocol for a mixed methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06679595 (Transmural Care for Chronically Ill Children), which is not on this 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.
Transmural Care for Chronically Ill Children: Scientific Guidance and Evaluation of Pilot Projects
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
introductionThe Belgian healthcare system is to a large extent hospital-centred, prompting government initiatives to shift care towards patient's homes and reduce hospital stays. To avoid unnecessary hospital stays and offer alternative and innovative forms of care, the Belgian federal health authorities selected five pilot projects for transmural care for chronically ill children. Guided by the Medical Research Council framework, this study aims to evaluate the paediatric transmural care projects to inform new models for paediatric care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a mixed-methods realist evaluation, the study comprises three phases: (1) initial programme theory development, (2) initial programme theory testing and (3) programme theory refinement. In a first phase, the initial programme theory rooted in the normalisation process theory will be refined from insights retrieved from document review and focus group interviews with healthcare professionals. In the second phase, the initial programme theory will be tested using empirical data. Routine data and questionnaires will examine whether characteristics of participants and outcomes are in line with the quintuple aim framework. Focus groups with children, parents and stakeholders, and document analysis will be used to evaluate the structure of the intervention, examine the process and context, and understand more in-depth the outcomes. A budget impact analysis will be used to assess whether the pilot project is affordable. In a third phase, qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed using a convergent mixed-methods model, involving continuous triangulation of multiple data sets to facilitate greater understanding of the context and refinement of the programme theory. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ghent University Hospital (Belgian Registration Number B6702024000193) after consultation with all Ethics Committees of the participating hospitals. Written informed consent will be obtained from participants or their legal representatives prior to data collection. Participant confidentiality will be maintained throughout the study. Study results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at national and international conferences. The general population will be informed of the aggregated results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT06679595.
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.