ArticleBMJ mental health2025
ImproviNg Tic services in EnglaND: a multi-method study to explore existing healthcare service provision for children and young people with tics and Tourette syndrome.
Article in BMJ mental health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Care pathways for tourette syndrome are deficient: implementing a stepped, needs-based approach.European child & adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Lessons learned from including Patient and Public Involvement members throughout research projects in Tic Disorder research.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Development of a tic service model for children and young people in England: a Delphi study.BMJ open · 2026Article
- The Prevalence of Tic Disorders in Poland: Regional and Sex Differences.Tremor and other hyperkinetic movements (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Article
- The Nottinghamshire Neurodiversity Network: building a multidisciplinary team of experts to improve pathways to care.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTimely access to diagnostic assessment and treatment is essential to improve function and mitigate the risk of poor long-term outcomes in children and young people (CYP) with tics.
objectiveThis study aimed to explore (i) how tic services for CYP in England are currently organised, including access to assessment and treatment and (ii) healthcare professionals' (HCPs) experiences of assessing and treating tics.
methodsTwo methodologies were used to examine tic service provision. First, two freedom of information (FOI) requests were sent to Integrated Care Boards (FOI1) and service providers (FOI2) to gather data on referral and assessment processes, and treatments offered. Second, a national survey of HCPs explored their experiences and training needs when assessing and treating tics.
findingsFOI responses indicated that 12 of 62 services (19.4%), primarily located in the London area, offered a full pathway for the referral, assessment and treatment of tics in CYP.The national survey sample (n=184) included psychologists, paediatricians, neurologists and mental health nurses. Most described services as poorly structured and reported a need for additional resources and training in the assessment and treatment of tics.
conclusionsInconsistent and underfunded tic service provision across England limits HCPs' ability to support CYP with tics effectively. There is an urgent need to develop clear service pathways offering both assessment and treatment, and to equip HCPs with sufficient training and resources to provide appropriate care. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Current tic service provision does not meet the healthcare needs of CYP in England. Without improvements, CYP are at increased risk of poorer long-term outcomes.
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.