ArticleBMC public health2025
Engaging stakeholders in the north-west first 1000 days project: building a strong community support ecosystem.
Article in BMC public health, 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.
- Thriving in the First 1000 Days: Lessons from Positive Deviance Among Young Families.International journal of environmental research and public health · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe first 1000 days (F1D) (from conception to 2 years of age) is a pivotal period for maternal and child health. Engaging stakeholders at key stages of research and policy development can bridge the gap between scientific evidence, policymaking, and community needs, and contribute to the generation of culturally sensitive and evidence-based strategies to enhance maternal and child health. This research presents a mixed-methods analysis of stakeholder consultation associated with the North-West First 1000 Days (NW F1D) project.
objectiveTo gain deeper insights into the perspectives of stakeholders regarding the importance of the F1D and what is required to best support all families in the NW of Tasmania.
methodsKey stakeholders from the local government areas (LGAs) of Burnie, Circular Head, and Devonport were recruited through a purposive snowball sampling approach based on their influence, interest or expertise in the F1D. A semi-structured interview protocol developed by the research team and guided by a pre-prepared inquiry framework was utilized to gather pertinent information, with a subsequent team-based researcher triangulation approach to extracting key insights.
resultsStakeholders highlighted the need for foundational knowledge on F1D principles, including brain development and toxic stress mitigation, while ensuring information remains accessible and not overwhelming. They emphasized addressing mental health challenges for new parents and identified traditional information sources such as family networks, but noted accessibility and equity gaps affecting Aboriginal, Torres Strait Islander, and culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities. Structural challenges, including financial stress and lack of support for high-risk pregnancies, were key concerns. Stakeholders recommended sharing information in multiple ways through trusted professionals and community leaders. Sustainability and longevity of programs, institutional integration, and continuous feedback were identified as crucial for long-term success.
conclusionsThe true impact of a co-designed, evidence-based, and context-specific approach to the F1D is still unfolding. Integrating rich qualitative data on stakeholders’ lived experiences is crucial for fostering long-term partnerships, gaining community support, and enhancing the sustainability and effectiveness of F1D initiatives.
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.