The impact of day care on socially disadvantaged families: An example of the use of process evaluation within a randomized controlled trial

Child: Care, Health and Development

Volumn 30, Issue 6, 2004, Pages 691-698

  Toroyan, Tami ^a   Oakley, A ^b   Laing, G ^c   Roberts, I ^a   Mugford, M ^d   Turner, J ^e  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c Academic Unit of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA   (United Kingdom)

^e The Mapledene Early Years Centre   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Household income; Pre school day care; Randomization; Social intervention

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD CARE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DAY CARE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; HEALTH CARE FINANCING; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH EDUCATION; HOUSEHOLD; HUMAN; INFANT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVIEW; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MOTHER; POVERTY; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS MONITORING; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RATING SCALE; SOCIAL ASPECT; SOCIAL STATUS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED KINGDOM; WORK RESUMPTION;

ADULT; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; DAY CARE; FAMILY HEALTH; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; LIFE STYLE; MALE; PROCESS ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PSYCHOSOCIAL DEPRIVATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS;

EID: 9444226487     PISSN: 03051862     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2004.00481.x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Campbell, M., Fitzpatrick, R., Haines, A., Kinmonth, A. L., Sandercock, P., Spiegelhalter, D. & Tyrer, P. (2000) Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. British Medical Journal, 321, 694-696.
2. Davies, P. (2000) Contributions from qualitative research. In: What Works? Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Public Services (eds H. T. O. Davies, S. M. Nutley & P. C. Smith). Policy Press, Bristol, UK (in press).
3. Department for Education and Skills (2001) National Standards for Under Eights Day Care and Childminding. DfES Publications, Nottingham, UK.
4. Elford, J., Bolding, G. & Sherr, L. (2001) Peer education has no significant impact on HIV risk behaviours among gay men in London. AIDS, 15, 535-538.
5. Entwistle, V. A., Renfrew, M. J., Yearley, S., Forrester, J. & Lamount, T. (1998) Lay perspectives: advantages for health research. British Medical Journal, 316, 463-466.
6. Harms, T. & Clifford, R. (1980) Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. Teachers College Press, New York, USA.
7. Koops, L. & Lindley, R. L. (2002) Thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke: consumer involvement in design of new randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 325, 415-417.
8. Land, H. (2001) Lone mothers, employment and childcare. In: Lone Parents and Employment. A Cross-National Comparison of Recent Policy Developments (eds J. Millar & K. Rowlingson). Policy Press, Bristol, UK.
9. Lavalle, I., Finch, S., Nove, A. & Lewis, C. (2000) Parents' Demands for Childcare. DfEE Research Brief no. 176, London, UK.
10. Malterud, K. (2001) Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet, 358, 483-488.
11. Moon, A. M., Mullee, M. A., Thompson, R. L., Speller, V. & Roderick, P. (1999) Health-related research and evaluation in schools. Health Education, 1, 27-34.
12. Moore, L. (2002) Research design for the rigorous evaluation of complex educational interventions: lessons from health services research. Building Research Capacity, January, 4-5.
13. Oakley, A., Strange, V., Stephenson, J., Forrest, S. & Monteiro, H. and the RIPPLE Study Team (2004) Evaluating processes: a case study of a randomised controlled trial of sex education. Evaluation (in press).
14. Oppenheim, C. & Harker, L. (1996) Poverty - the Facts, 3rd edn. Child Poverty Action Group, London, UK.
15. Stapleton, H., Kirkham, M. & Thomas, G. (2002) Qualitative study of evidence-based leaflets in maternity care. British Medical Journal, 324, 639-643.
16. Strange, V., Forrest, S. & Oakley, A. (2001) A listening trial: 'qualitative' methods within experimental research. In: Using Research for Effective Health Promotion (eds S. Oliver & G. Peersman), pp. 138-153. Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.
17. Sylva, K., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Taggart, B., Evans, E., Dobson, A., Jeavons, M., Lewis, K., Morahan, M. & Sadler, S. (1999) Characteristics of the Centres in the EPPE Sample: Observational Profiles. Technical Paper 6; The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project. DfEE, Institute of Education, London, UK.
18. Toroyan, T., Roberts, I. & Oakley, A. (2000) Randomisation and resource allocation: a missed opportunity for evaluating health care and social interventions. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, 319-322.
19. Toroyan, T., Roberts, I., Oakley, A., Laing, G., Mugford, M. & Frost, C. (2003) Effectiveness of out-of-home daycare: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 327, 906-909.
20. Zoritch, B., Roberts, I. & Oakley, A. (1998) The health and welfare effects of day-care: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Social Science & Medicine, 47, 317-327.