ArticleClinical child and family psychology review2026
Opportunities to Improve the Implementation of Relational Health Interventions for Children and Families: A Secondary Analysis of a Scoping Review.
Article in Clinical child and family psychology review, 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.
- Population Approaches to Promoting Relational Health From Early Life.Clinical child and family psychology review · 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
Abstract
Despite the availability of universally delivered evidence-based relational health interventions, their wide-scale translation into practice is slow and unsustained. Measuring implementation outcomes within intervention trials is critical to understand their effectiveness and inform future scaling. This study aimed to determine the extent to which universally delivered relational health interventions measured and reported on implementation outcomes to inform their effectiveness. A secondary analysis of a scoping review examined the extent to which 123 RCT-evaluated relational health intervention studies referred to (1) implementation related theories or frameworks; (2) implementation data collection methods; (3) implementation measures, and; (4) each of twelve implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity-adherence, fidelity-dose, fidelity-delivery, fidelity-responsiveness, fidelity-differentiation, penetration and sustainability). The type of implementation trial was also assessed. Seventeen percent of studies reported implementation outcomes as part of the intervention main effects, with the remaining studies (83%) reporting implementation outcomes as a minor sub-analysis (52%), in their discussion only (21%) or not at all (10%). The most frequently reported outcomes were fidelity measures of dose and adherence. Almost a half of the twelve implementation outcomes were not addressed. No studies described an implementation-related theory or framework, and all used non-standardised measures. Greater attention to measuring and reporting implementation outcomes within relational health intervention trials is needed to ensure that critical evidence for replicability and scalability is available to those who are considering implementation in practice. This would facilitate improvements in both intervention implementation and sustainability and importantly, relational health outcomes for children and families.
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.