ArticleHealth promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals2026
Supporting Decision Making in Early Years Initiatives: Co-Designing a Child Health Evidence Dashboard.
Article in Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
issue addressedResearch has trialled many initiatives to support caregivers to shape young children's health behaviours. However, translating evidence to public health practice and policy is a challenge, in part due to access to such evidence. We aimed to co-design a child health evidence dashboard, and to understand the expected enablers and barriers to use of the dashboard with next-users (e.g., Australian child service managers, program planners).
methodsUsing an integrated knowledge translation approach, we conducted a mixed-methods study involving five online co-design workshops. Next-users were invited to participate in the workshops and completed pre- and post-workshop surveys. Pragmatic data analysis occurred after each workshop to identify next-user requirements and inform iterative dashboard development alongside workshops.
results15 next-users participated in the workshop series (median of 9 per workshop). Next-user preferences were categorised into desired uses, content, features and functionality, and design for the dashboard. Key enablers to use of the dashboard included relevance, promotion and credibility of the dashboard, positive user experience, time and resources to support use of the dashboard.
conclusionsWe identified what and how next-users want evidence on child health initiatives to inform policy and practice. Findings enabled development of an initial evidence dashboard prototype informed by next-user preferences. Understanding the enablers and barriers to using and engaging with the dashboard will inform ongoing development and implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.