ArticleBMJ open2026
Development of a tic service model for children and young people in England: a Delphi study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop an evidence-based, consensus-driven service model for the identification, assessment and treatment of tic disorders in children and young people (CYP) in England, addressing the absence of dedicated pathways and national clinical guidance.
designTwo-stage consensus study comprising a Delphi survey, expert/patient and public involvement (PPI) review and regional stakeholder workshops.
settingUK healthcare and community settings relevant to tic disorder assessment and management (primary care, neurodevelopmental services, child and adolescent mental health services).
participantsStage 1: UK-based clinicians, researchers and practitioners with expertise in tic disorders (Delphi panel; n=49; 98% retention across rounds). Stage 2: regional stakeholders including clinicians, commissioners, service managers, third-sector representatives and parents/carers (n=36). Eligibility required relevant professional or lived experience; no exclusions applied beyond this criterion. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Identification of a consensus-based component of a best-practice service model for tic disorders and barriers and facilitators to implementation across regional pathways.
resultsThe Delphi process generated consensus on 40 core components, refined to 43 following expert and PPI review. Agreed features included referral criteria, comprehensive assessment, psychoeducation, behavioural interventions, pharmacological options and integrated cross-service working. Stakeholder workshops highlighted key implementation challenges, including workforce training, funding constraints and coordination across neurodevelopmental and mental health services, informing practical adaptations to the model.
conclusionsThis consensus-informed service model provides structured, UK-specific guidance to support earlier identification, appropriate intervention and improved care coordination for CYP with tic disorders. Future research should assess real-world implementation and impact. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The model offers actionable recommendations for referral pathways, intervention provision and service configuration. Adoption may reduce diagnostic delays, minimise misdiagnosis and strengthen collaboration between primary, neurodevelopmental and mental health services, leading to improved outcomes for CYP with tic disorders.
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.