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.
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.
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.
- Evaluation of special educational needs and disability provision in English primary schools using administrative health and education data in the ECHILD database.International journal of population data science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.