- Hilary Thomson, research fellow (Hilary.Thomson{at}ed.ac.uk)a,
- Sue Ross, lecturer in health service researcha,
- Philip Wilson, senior research fellowa,
- Alex McConnachie, statisticiana,
- Richard Watson, general practitionerb
- aDepartment of General Practice, University of Glasgow, Woodside Health Centre, Glasgow, G20 7LR
- bCraigallian Surgery, 11 Craigallian Avenue, Glasgow G72 8RW
- Correspondence to: H Thomson, Department of Community Health Sciences, General Practice Primary Care Research Group, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9DX
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effect of Baby Check, an illness scoring system for babies of 6 months or less, on parents' use of health services for their baby.
Design:Randomised controlled trial.
Setting: 13 general practices in Glasgow.
Subjects: 997 newly delivered mothers, randomised to receive either Baby Check and Play It Safe, an accident prevention leaflet (n=497), or Play It Safealone (control group, n=500).
Main outcome measures:Data on consultations and referrals extracted from general practice notes after 6 months.
Results: At the time of recruitment, maternal characteristics were similar for both groups (mean maternal age 29 years; deprivation categories 6 and 1 in both groups; 424 (45%) mothers were primiparous). At 6 months, general practice notes were available for 467 (94%) of the Baby Check group and 468 (94%) of the control group. The number of general practitioner consultations did not differ between the groups: median number of consultations was 2 (interquartile range 1 to 4) in the Baby Check group, and 2 (1 to 3) in the control group. Use of out of hours services did not differ significantly between the two groups (86 v 85; P=0.93).
Conclusion: Distributing Baby Check to an unselected group of mothers does not affect use of health services for infants up to 6 months of age.
Footnotes
-
Funding Funding: Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Office Department of Health funded this study. The views expressed are of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding body.
-
Competing interests None declared.
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: The comforts of spiritualism
Published 23 May 2012
Re: The hardest thing: admitting error
Published 23 May 2012
Ice cream headache as a new example of “Cold headache” in Avicenna’s manuscript
Published 23 May 2012
Re: Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial seriesCommentary: Larger trials are needed
Published 23 May 2012
Re: Testing athletes, and banning those who take drugs, is unjustifiable
Published 23 May 2012
Most responses
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (8 responses)
Published 2 May 2012
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (6 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32