ArticleBMJ open2026
Barriers to and facilitators of paediatric early hearing detection and intervention: protocol for a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the landscape of early childhood development services: a global scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Child marriage in Iran: a protocol for a scoping review and meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Infertility treatment experiences in Iran: protocol for a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Voice as a predictive signal: protocol for a scoping review of AI in early childhood development.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEarly hearing detection and intervention (EHDI) is a crucial public health initiative focused on the prompt identification and management of hearing impairments in children, significantly impacting their communication abilities, cognitive development and overall well-being. Although the global acceptance of EHDI programmes is gradually expanding, delay in diagnosis and enrolment in early intervention continues to challenge optimal outcomes. Qualitative studies examining the barriers and facilitators within EHDI remain limited, particularly regarding the experiences of caregivers, healthcare providers and policymakers across various contexts. This systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence aims to comprehensively identify and synthesise these barriers and facilitators from multiple stakeholder perspectives aiming to inform policies and strategies that improve EHDI programme effectiveness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive search will be conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Scientific Information Database and MagIran, from database inception to December 2025, with no language restrictions. The SPIDER framework will guide the inclusion of qualitative studies on barriers to and facilitators of EHDI (sample: children, parents and providers; phenomenon of interest: EHDI barriers/facilitators; design: qualitative; evaluation: experiences/perspectives; research type: qualitative). Quantitative-only studies, non-peer-reviewed sources and studies without accessible full texts will be excluded. Two reviewers will independently screen titles/abstracts/full texts, resolving disagreements via discussion or a third reviewer. Quality appraisal will be done using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. Data synthesis will employ thematic content analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review and meta-synthesis was approved by the Resarch Ethics Committee of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences (approval number: IR.TBZMED.VCR.REC.1404.331). The committee determind that the study adheres to established etical standards, as it involes only the synthesis and analysis of previously published literature, with no direct interaction with human participants, n collection of primary data, and no involvement in clinical interventions. Therefore, the review dose not require informed of consent or ethical clearance beyond the institutional approval obtainad. Findings will be shared via peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and targeted summaries for policymakers and clinicians.
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.