Back

Experiences of families using an early example of neighbourhood multidisciplinary care for children and young people: A qualitative exploration using the theoretical framework of acceptability

Litchfield, I.; Dutton, F.; Harper, L.; Kaur, S.; Luxmoore, C.; Rahman, L.; Wolhuter, C.; Bird, C.

2026-05-19 primary care research
10.64898/2026.05.14.26353240 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service is attempting to address the ongoing challenges to heath equity in underserved children and young people (CYP) by creating Neighbourhood Multi-Disciplinary Teams (NMDTs) that combine health services, social care providers, local authorities, voluntary, community and faith and social enterprise is needed. Despite this significant shift in the delivery of care, there is a lack of suitably robust evidence of family experience to inform their development. This work contributes to this need using the experience and perspectives of families using the experience and perspectives of families using an early example of an NMDT for CYP the Sparkbrook Children's Zone in Birmingham, United Kingdom. Methods The study used data collected from two focus groups conducted with parents whose children had been treated by the Sparkbrook Children's Zone. The data were analysed using a directed content analysis to populate Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Results In summary and by framework domain, we found that that individuals became aware of the SCZ through a range of sources, understanding that it was multidisciplinary if sometimes unsure of precisely the organisations involved (Intervention coherence) Parents described the benefits to access of a locally situated collocated service (Burden) the personalised relationship with providers (Cultural sensitivity0 extended conultation time, and support for the family's complex clinical needs (Perceived effectiveness) Conclusions Parents appeared to prefer the SCZ over usual primary care but more work is needed with larger sample sizes to ensure that the structure of NMDTs are understood and optimised.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
33.1%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.7%
50% of probability mass above
3
BJGP Open
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
4
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
6
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.7%
7
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.6%
8
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
9
Palliative Medicine
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.9%
10
BMJ Paediatrics Open
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
11
Open Heart
19 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
12
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.5%
13
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
14
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.2%
15
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
16
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.0%
17
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
18
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.9%
19
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
12 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
20
Journal of Sleep Research
31 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
21
JMIR Research Protocols
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
22
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
23
Public Health Nutrition
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.6%
24
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.6%