ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2026
Evaluation of a universal 3-4 month Healthy Child Programme visit in a local area of England: a mixed methods study.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The interval between the 6-8 week and 9-12 month mandated reviews in the Healthy Child Programme is lengthy and may lead to delayed intervention. In Rotherham, northern England, an additional universal 3-4 month review was introduced to support child development and earlier identification of parent and child needs. We aimed to evaluate its reach, acceptability, and association with developmental outcomes. Study design: Mixed methods study using administrative records, qualitative interviews and focus groups with parents (n = 31), nursery nurses (n = 7), and commissioners (n = 4). Methods: The association between uptake and recording of maternal mood by deprivation, ethnicity, maternal age, and parity for babies aged 3-4 months between January 2024 andFebruary 2025 was analysed using mixed-effects logistic regression. Developmental outcomes were compared (Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ-3) scores at 9-12 months) for children eligible for the universal review versus pre-intervention cohort. Qualitative data were analysed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Results: Uptake was approximately 80%, around 15% points lower than mandated reviews. Uptake was equitable across deprivation and ethnicity but lower among multiparous mothers (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 0.29, 95% CI 0.22-0.37). Maternal mood recording was lower for mothers <20 years and for multiparous mothers (AOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.94). At 9-12 months, eligible children had higher odds of scoring above the close monitoring cut-off for problem solving (AOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.03-1.93), with no significant differences in other ASQ-3 domains. Parents valued reassurance, tailored developmental advice, and local signposting, though some noted inconsistent advice, maternal mood assessment and unclear visit purpose. Staff endorsed the visit's developmental focus but reported capacity pressures. Conclusions: The universal 3-4 month review was broadly acceptable, and associated with higher ASQ-3 problem-solving scores. Communicating visit purpose and consistent mood assessment is required.
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.