↓ Skip to main content

Rigour and Rapport: a qualitative study of parents’ and professionals’ experiences of joint agency infant death investigation

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pediatrics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rigour and Rapport: a qualitative study of parents’ and professionals’ experiences of joint agency infant death investigation
Published in
BMC Pediatrics, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12887-017-0803-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna Garstang, Frances Griffiths, Peter Sidebotham

Abstract

In many countries there are now detailed Child Death Review (CDR) processes following unexpected child deaths. CDR can lead to a fuller understanding of the causes for each child's death but this potentially intrusive process may increase the distress of bereaved families. In England, a joint agency approach (JAA) is used where police, healthcare and social services investigate sudden child deaths together and a key part of this is the joint home visit (JHV) where specialist police and paediatricians visit the home with the parents to view the scene of death. This study aimed to learn of bereaved parents' experiences of JAA investigation following Sudden Unexpected Death in Infancy (SUDI). This was a qualitative study of joint agency investigation of SUDI by specialist police, healthcare and social services including case note analysis, parental questionnaires, and in-depth interviews with parents and professionals. Families were recruited at the conclusion of the JAA. Data were analysed using a Framework Approach. 21/113 eligible families and 26 professionals participated giving theoretical saturation of data. There was an inherent conflict for professionals trying to both investigate deaths thoroughly as well as support families. Bereaved parents appreciated the JAA especially for the information it provided about the cause of death but were frustrated with long delays waiting to obtain this. Many parents wanted more emotional support to be routinely provided. Most parents found the JHV helpful but a small minority of mothers found this intensely distressing. In comparison to JHVs, when police visited death scenes without paediatricians, information was missed and parents found these visits more upsetting. There were issues with uniformed non-specialist police traumatising parents by starting criminal investigations and preventing parents from accessing their home or collecting vital possessions. Overall most parents feel supported by professionals during the JAA; however there is scope for improvement. Paediatricians should ensure that parents are kept updated with the progress of the investigations. Some parents require more emotional support and professionals should assist them in accessing this.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 78 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Other 4 5%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 30 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 14%
Psychology 8 10%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 34 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,538,247
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pediatrics
#1,678
of 3,023 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,978
of 420,233 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pediatrics
#34
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,023 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,233 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.