Table 9Summary GRADE table (Middle School Success vs care as usual)

OutcomeSample sizeEffect size (95% CI)QualityInterpretation of effecta
Association between being in the intervention group and foster parent and girl reported internalising problems at 6 months (Parent Daily Report Checklist)100β −0.28 P<0.01Very LowIntervention was associated with a more favourable outcome
Association between being in the intervention group and foster parent and girl reported externalising problems at 6 months (Parent Daily Report Checklist)100β −0.21 P<0.01Very LowIntervention was associated with a more favourable outcome
Association between being in the intervention group and foster parent and girl reported prosocial behaviour at 6 months (Parent Daily Report Checklist)100β 0.15 P>0.05Very LowNo association was observed between intervention and outcome
Prosocial behaviour score at 12 months follow up (subscale from Parent Daily Report Checklist)100MD 0.06 (0.01 to 0.11)Very LowEffect favours intervention group, but it may be less than the MID
Association with delinquent peers score at 12 months follow up (modified version of the general delinquency scale from the Self-Report Delinquency Scale)100Beta −0.21, SE 0.09, P<0.05Very LowEffect favours intervention group, but it may be less than the MID
Caregiver-reported Internalising/externalising symptoms score at 2 years follow up (Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment)100MD 0.27 (−3.03 to 3.57)Very LowNo meaningful difference
Delinquent behaviour score at 3 years follow up (Self-Report Delinquency Scale)100MD −0.65 (−1.43 to 0.13)Very LowCould not differentiate
Association with delinquent peers score at 3 years follow up (modified version of the general delinquency scale from the Self-Report Delinquency Scale)100MD −0.34 (−0.71 to 0.03)Very LowCould not differentiate
Composite substance use score at 3 years follow up (girls were asked how many times in the past year they had (a) smoked cigarettes or chewed tobacco, (b) drank alcohol (beer, wine, or hard liquor), and (c) used marijuana).100MD −0.74 (−1.33 to −0.15)Very LowEffect favours intervention group, but it may be less than the MID
Tobacco use score at 3 years follow up (see above)100MD −0.87 (−1.69 to −0.05)Very LowEffect favours intervention group, but it may be less than the MID
Alcohol use score at 3 years follow up (see above)100MD −0.31 (−0.78 to 0.16)Very LowCould not differentiate
Marijuana use score at 3 years follow up (see above)100MD −1.04 (−1.74 to −0.34)Very LowEffect favours intervention group, but it may be less than the MID
(a)

No meaningful difference: crosses line of no effect but not line of MID; Could not differentiate: crosses line of no effect and line of MID; May favour: confidence intervals do not cross line of no effect but cross MID; Favours: confidence intervals do not cross line of no effect or MID

From: Interventions to support readiness for school in looked-after children and young people

Cover of Interventions to support readiness for school in looked-after children and young people
Interventions to support readiness for school in looked-after children and young people: Looked-After Children and Young People: Evidence review H.
NICE Guideline, No. 205.
Copyright © NICE 2021.

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.