A qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives on adopting a digital tool to measure child development at the 2–2½ year review in England

Abstract Aim The 2–2½-year review is the final universal mandated contact in England’s Healthy Child Programme, with a child development assessment using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3 (AQ®-3). Amid a wider digitisation agenda, the UK government is exploring digital alternatives to the paper-based ASQ®-3 tool. Understanding stakeholder perspectives is critical for informing implementation. Subject and methods 15 focus groups (63 participants), including parents, health visiting professionals, local authority colleagues, and policy officials, analysed using Framework Analysis. Results Stakeholders reported potential benefits of a digital tool: user experience, service efficiency, and alignment with national digital priorities. However, where services were trying to meet the mandate to review every child aged 2–2½-years with limited resources and workforce, our participants saw a risk that a digital tool might replace a full in-person assessment. Parents and professionals agreed that any digital tool must not compromise the holistic, relational nature of the 2–2½-year review or undermine the universal coverage of in-person contacts with families. Participants highlighted the complexities of digital exclusion, incompatibility with local data systems, and staff training. Conclusions Digitisation must be implemented carefully to avoid undermining service equity and the core components of the service (universal in-person assessments), must include system interoperability, professional training.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Public Health
Published
2026-01-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-025-02632-9
Primary Topic
Health Policy Implementation Science
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives on adopting a digital tool to measure child development at the 2–2½ year review in England

Joanna Lysons, Jennifer Kirman, Hannah Cann, Pasco Fearon et al.
Journal of Public Health
Health Policy Implementation Science
article

A qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives on adopting a digital tool to measure child development at the 2–2½ year review in England

Joanna Lysons, Jennifer Kirman, Hannah Cann, Pasco Fearon, Jenny Woodman, Maria Raisa Jessica Aquino, Sally Kendall, Alison Lamont, Rocio Pineda Mendez
article en

Abstract

Abstract Aim The 2–2½-year review is the final universal mandated contact in England’s Healthy Child Programme, with a child development assessment using the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3 (AQ®-3). Amid a wider digitisation agenda, the UK government is exploring digital alternatives to the paper-based ASQ®-3 tool. Understanding stakeholder perspectives is critical for informing implementation. Subject and methods 15 focus groups (63 participants), including parents, health visiting professionals, local authority colleagues, and policy officials, analysed using Framework Analysis. Results Stakeholders reported potential benefits of a digital tool: user experience, service efficiency, and alignment with national digital priorities. However, where services were trying to meet the mandate to review every child aged 2–2½-years with limited resources and workforce, our participants saw a risk that a digital tool might replace a full in-person assessment. Parents and professionals agreed that any digital tool must not compromise the holistic, relational nature of the 2–2½-year review or undermine the universal coverage of in-person contacts with families. Participants highlighted the complexities of digital exclusion, incompatibility with local data systems, and staff training. Conclusions Digitisation must be implemented carefully to avoid undermining service equity and the core components of the service (universal in-person assessments), must include system interoperability, professional training.

Journal of Public Health
Oxford Brookes University (GB), University of Kent (GB), University of Cambridge (GB), Oxford Policy Management (GB), Edwards (United Kingdom) (GB), Thomas Young Centre (GB), University of Oxford (GB), Institute of Child Health (GR), University College London (GB), Newcastle University (GB)
National Institute for Health and Care Research, Department of Health and Social Care, Scheme for Promotion of Academic and Research Collaboration
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 92%
Health Policy Implementation Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.