↓ Skip to main content

Early years interventions to improve child health and wellbeing: what works, for whom and in what circumstances? Protocol for a realist review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users

Readers on

mendeley
114 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
Early years interventions to improve child health and wellbeing: what works, for whom and in what circumstances? Protocol for a realist review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0068-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emma Coles, Helen Cheyne, Brigid Daniel

Abstract

Child health and wellbeing is influenced by multiple factors, all of which can impact on early childhood development. Adverse early life experiences can have lasting effects across the life course, sustaining inequalities and resulting in negative consequences for the health and wellbeing of individuals and society. The potential to influence future outcomes via early intervention is widely accepted; there are numerous policy initiatives, programmes and interventions clustered around the early years theme, resulting in a broad and disparate evidence base. Existing reviews have addressed the effectiveness of early years interventions, yet there is a knowledge gap regarding the mechanisms underlying why interventions work in given contexts. This realist review seeks to address the question 'what works, for whom and in what circumstances?' in terms of early years interventions to improve child health and wellbeing. The review will be conducted following Pawson's five-stage iterative realist methodology: (1) clarify scope, (2) search for evidence, (3) appraise primary studies and extract data, (4) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions and (5) disseminate findings. The reviewers will work with stakeholders in the early stages to refine the focus of the review, create a review framework and build programme theory. Searches for primary evidence will be conducted iteratively. Data will be extracted and tested against the programme theory. A review collaboration group will oversee the review process. The review will demonstrate how early years interventions do or do not work in different contexts and with what outcomes and effects. Review findings will be written up following the RAMESES guidelines and will be disseminated via a report, presentations and peer-reviewed publications. PROSPERO CRD42015017832.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 113 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Researcher 13 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 4%
Other 25 22%
Unknown 30 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 25 22%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 14%
Psychology 9 8%
Unspecified 3 3%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 34 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 12 December 2018.
All research outputs
#3,118,320
of 23,983,367 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#587
of 2,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,346
of 269,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#12
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,983,367 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,077 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
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 269,495 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.