Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41868546›Full record

ReviewHumanities & social sciences communications2026

Examining local level variation in Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) service provision and associated data sources in England: a scoping review.

Jennifer Clare Saxton, Ariadna Albajara Saenz, Owen Williams, Jacob Matthews, Isaac Winterburn, Eleanor Chatburn, Nazneen Nazeer, Kristine Black-Hawkins, Tamsin Ford

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Humanities & social sciences communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

9 authors.

Jennifer Clare SaxtonUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Ariadna Albajara SaenzUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Owen WilliamsUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jacob MatthewsUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Isaac WinterburnUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Eleanor ChatburnUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Nazneen NazeerUniversity of Kelaniya, Kelaniya, Sri Lanka.
Kristine Black-HawkinsUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Tamsin FordUniversity of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) system in England was reformed in 2014, including the introduction of child-centred legally binding education, health and care plans (EHCPs) and expectations for improved multi-agency working coordinated by local authorities (LAs). Since then, service-user satisfaction has declined, and children's outcomes have not improved. Critics cite local variation in SEND provision and limited accountability for implementation failures as contributing factors. This scoping review summarises peer-reviewed and grey literature as well as open-access data sources reporting LA and multi-academy trust (MAT) level variation in SEND provision to identify key reasons for local variation SEND services, and data sources that could be used to better monitor local public bodies. We identified and graded 120 articles/reports (18 peer-reviewed, 102 grey) and 8 open-access data sources. The literature investigated nine topic areas; most studies were low quality. Eight open-access data sources included information about SEND prevalence, demand and provision complaints. Our review highlights that LAs were underprepared and under-resourced to implement the reforms. The administration involved in EHCPs contribute to variation in multiple ways. Greater standardisation and guidance for professionals could reduce variation. Existing data sources could be better used to improve monitoring and accountability for local provision, which should include MATs given their potential to influence SEND provision. Low-quality studies dominated the grey literature. More rigorous methods and reporting standards could also improve decision-making and service planning.

Indexed as

EducationHealth humanitiesInformation systems and information technologyScience, technology and societySocial policy

Identifiers

PMID41868546
PMCPMC12999517

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.