ArticleInternational journal of population data science2026
Harnessing routinely collected data for the evaluation of early years interventions: insights from a scoping review of evaluation studies.
Article in International journal of population data science, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Routinely collected data (RCD) describes data about individuals that is documented routinely in practice. Evaluation of early years interventions is imperative for improving child health and development, and utilisation of RCD for research could overcome limitations with traditional study designs, such as participant burden, attrition and disappointment bias. A systematic understanding of if (and how) RCD is being used to evaluate early years interventions is lacking. Objectives: To scope the literature on how RCD is being used to evaluate the effectiveness of early years interventions being delivered in the UK. Methods: The study protocol was registered online (osf.io/cug36). Included studies were interventions for expectant parents and parents of children aged 0-5 years, with a quantitative measure obtained from RCD as an outcome. The study scope was limited to the UK, from January 2000 to November 2024. Completed studies and study protocols were eligible, encompassing grey literature and peer reviewed sources. Medline, Psycinfo and Embase databases were searched via Ovid. Results: 32 unique studies published 2009-2024 had used or were planning to use RCD as an outcome in an evaluation of an early years intervention. Most measured more than one outcome, and the most common were birth outcomes and child education. Many studies noted limitations of RCD, particularly being limited by measures available, and fewer noted strengths. Conclusion: Whilst RCD expands evaluation opportunities for measuring multiple relevant parent and child outcomes simultaneously, researchers are limited by what measures are available in RCD. We make specific recommendations to improve the use of RCD in early years evaluations. With careful consideration, RCD can provide useful insights regarding the impacts of early years interventions. This scoping review reveals an emerging methodology that may have increasing importance for evaluating early years policies and interventions, but may currently be constrained by data availability and quality.
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.