Systematic review of educational interventions for looked‐after children and young people: Recommendations for intervention development and evaluation

Abstract

Looked‐after children and young people (LACYP) are educationally disadvantaged compared to the general population. A systematic review was conducted of randomised controlled trials evaluating interventions aimed at LACYP aged ≤18 years. Restrictions were not placed on delivery setting or delivery agent. Intervention outcomes were: academic skills; academic achievement and grade completion; special education status; homework completion; school attendance, suspension, and drop‐out; number of school placements; teacher‐student relationships; school behaviour; and academic attitudes. Fifteen studies reporting on 12 interventions met the inclusion criteria. Nine interventions demonstrated tentative impacts. However, evidence of effectiveness could not be ascertained due to variable methodological quality, as appraised by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Theoretical and methodological recommendations are provided to enhance the development and evaluation of educational interventions.

A decade lost: does educational success mitigate the increased risks of premature death among children with experience of out-of-home care?

“…Recent systematic reviews of educational interventions among children in OHC have concluded that most interventions have tentative impacts, 28 and that the evidence on mechanisms underlying educational success is inconclusive. 29 However, reviews in this area suffer from the many methodological limitations of available research, highlighting the need for large-sample studies with longitudinal designs.…”

The educational progress and outcomes of children in care: editorial

“…O'Higgins et al 2017) and on the effectiveness of interventions for these young people (e.g. Evans et al 2017;Forsman & Vinnerljung, 2012;Liabo et al 2012;Mannay et al, 2015) have consistently reported a paucity of research and, where it exists, have concluded that it is characterised by poor quality. Furthermore, research in this area is under-theorised (Berridge, 2017).…”

Backing what works? Social Impact Bonds and evidence-informed policy and practice

“…The three proposed Trailblazer interventions with the strongest evidence base were initiated-these were the Manchester TFCO-A programme, the Newcastle Ways to Wellness social prescribing programme and the London Rough Sleeping SIB. There are a number of trials and a recent systematic review exploring social prescribing (Bickerdike, Booth, Wilson, Farley, & Wright, 2017) and academic research into interventions that aim to improve targeted adolescent behaviour, including TFCO-A (Evans, Brown, Rees, & Smith, 2017). Key elements of the rough sleeping intervention have been evaluated through quasi-experimental evaluations (Pleace & Bretherton, 2013) and the 'Housing First' principles it draws on has also been subjected to systematic review (Fitzpatrick-Lewis et al, 2011).…”