MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412407257 · doi:10.12968/jfch.2025.2.6.262

‘All the changes drain the life out of you’: a qualitative study of variation in health visiting across three local areas in England

2025· article· en· W4412407257 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda Clery, Katie Harron, Helen Bedford, Jenny Woodman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of family & child health. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth, psychology, and well-being
Canadian institutionsChildren’s Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariation (astronomy)Qualitative researchNew englandGeographySociologyPolitical scienceSocial sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Health visiting is a universal service aimed at improving child health and school readiness for under-5s. Understanding how services are experienced locally is needed to inform service improvements across England. Aims: To explore differences in professionals' and parents' experiences of the role and support delivered by health visiting services in their local area. Methods: In three sites across England, the authors conducted qualitative interviews with 14 health visiting professionals and parents. Findings: Three themes emerged: a service under pressure, encapsulating how health visiting was influenced by pressures in other health and social care services; perceived purpose of health visiting, capturing participant experiences of key performance indicators and availability of services; and that staff members are human too, describing the impact of commissioning and service structures on them. Conclusions: Perceived purpose of health visiting and commissioning structures should be considered when evaluating and monitoring health visiting services.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.010
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.405 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of family & child health.Same topicHealth, psychology, and well-beingFrench-language works237,207