Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41202105›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Barriers, enablers and outcomes reported by parents engaged with the special educational needs system in England: A qualitative study.

Jennifer Saxton, Anne-Marie Burn, Xinhe Zhang, Hilary Toulmin, Jennifer Parker, Helen Casey, Jacob Matthews, Isaac Winterburn, Charlotte Tripp, Sarah Barnes and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Jennifer SaxtonDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4353-0653
Anne-Marie BurnDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0637-2118
Xinhe ZhangDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Hilary ToulminDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Jennifer ParkerDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8605-9988
Helen CaseyDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Jacob MatthewsDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Isaac WinterburnDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Charlotte TrippDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0284-0301
Sarah BarnesDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Poppy HallDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Kristine Black-HawkinsFaculty of Education, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Hayley GainsDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0335-347X
Tamsin FordDepartment of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
(The HOPE Study)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The UK government is currently seeking solutions to solve the 'SEND Crisis' in England to improve service provision and children's outcomes. Parents play a central role in the identification of their children's needs and support requirements and can provide valuable insight into SEND system functioning. This qualitative study explored the experiences of 22 parents in identifying their children's needs, securing provision, and its perceived impact on the child and family. Participants' children had a range of SEND types, including autism, learning disabilities, and mental health problems. We used one-to-one interviews in conjunction with drawn life 'timelines' to gain a comprehensive picture of participants' experiences of engaging with the system over time. Thematic framework analysis identified legal protections and the advocacy efforts of parents and professionals as key enablers. Barriers included professionals' lack of understanding about SEND (particularly autism), poor communication between services and families, and system failures. Positive outcomes parents attributed to SEND provision included health, education and social improvements, and young people gaining autonomy and independence. Perceived negative outcomes included lost educational opportunities, worsening mental health for children and their parents, and educational policies lacking long-term vision. We provide narrative portraitures which echo these themes. Our study suggests that solving the SEND crisis will require multiple actions, not only to repair fractured relationships and improve communication between professionals and families, but standardisation of key processes to reduce unfair variation in provision. The current system heavily depends on advocates within it, which can inadvertently harm parents who engage with it; children without advocates are at risk of missing out on much needed provision. Our study also demonstrates that provision can substantially improve children's health, education and belonging in society. The government's goal should be to ensure that this level of effective provision is accessible for all children with SEND.

Indexed as

Education, SpecialParentsAdolescentAdultChildChild, PreschoolEnglandFemaleHumansMaleQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID41202105
PMCPMC12594389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.