NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
Interventions to support learning needs for school-aged looked-after children and young people
Evidence review I
NICE Guideline, No. 205
Interventions to support learning needs for school-aged looked-after children and young people
Review question
- a)
What is the effectiveness of interventions to support learning needs by either a learning provider or carer of school-aged looked-after children and young people?
- b)
Are interventions to support learning needs acceptable and accessible to looked-after children and young people and their care providers? What are the barriers to, and facilitators for the effectiveness of these interventions to support learning needs in school-aged looked-after children and young people?
Introduction
Looked-after children are at a greater risk of poor educational outcomes. In 2017, 56.3% of looked-after children had a special educational need, compared with 45.9% of children in need and 14.4% of all children. At key stage 2, 32% of looked-after children and young people reached the expected standard in reading, writing and maths (compared with 61% of those who were not looked after). In 2016, 0.10% of looked-after children were permanently excluded from school, compared to 0.08% of all children. Interventions that support learning needs for looked-after child during preschool, primary, or secondary education could help to improve educational outcomes while the child is at school.
Looked after children and young people are currently entitled to a pupil premium to support their education, however there is uncertainty about which specific educational interventions work. The (2010) NICE guideline for looked-after children and young people did not include recommendations on specific educational interventions. A NICE surveillance review found new evidence that indicated recommendations on interventions to support school learning in looked-after children might be needed.
Summary of protocol
PICO table
Table 1
PICO for review on interventions to support learning needs in looked-after children and young people.
SPIDER table
Table 2
SPIDER table for review on interventions to support care placement stability in looked-after children and young people.
Methods and process
This evidence review was developed using the methods and process described in Developing NICE guidelines: the manual. For further details of the methods used see Appendix N. Methods specific to this review question are described in this section and in the review protocol in Appendix A.
The search strategies for this review (and across the entire guideline) are detailed in Appendix B.
Declarations of interest were recorded according to NICE’s 2018 conflicts of interest policy.
Effectiveness evidence
Included studies
After removing duplicates, a total of 36,866 studies were identified from the search. After screening these references based on their titles and abstracts, 110 studies were obtained and reviewed against the inclusion criteria as described in the review protocol for interventions to support leaning in school (Appendix A). Overall, 17 studies, reporting on 16 original studies, were included.
The evidence consisted of 9 randomised controlled trials, 3 non-randomised controlled studies, 2 uncontrolled before-and-after studies, and 2 qualitative studies. See the table below for a summary of included studies. For the full evidence tables please see Appendix D. The full references of included studies are given in the reference section of this chapter. These articles considered 12 different interventions to support learning needs in school-aged looked-after children.
Excluded studies
In total, 93 references were excluded because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. See Appendix J for a list of references for excluded studies, with reasons for exclusion.
Summary of studies included in the effectiveness evidence
Quantitative evidence
Table 3
Summary of included quantitative studies.
Qualitative evidence
Table 4
Summary of included qualitative studies.
See Appendix D for full evidence tables
Summary of the effectiveness evidence
Quantitative evidence
Primary school-age (primarily)
Table 5
Summary GRADE table (Foster-parent delivered tutoring (Teach Your Children Well) (FP-TYCW) vs Wait List (WL)).
Table 6
Summary GRADE table (Volunteer-delivered tutoring (Teach Your Children Well) (V-TYCW) vs Wait List (WL)).
Table 7
Summary GRADE table (25-week Volunteer-delivered tutoring (Teach Your Children Well) (V-TYCW) vs 15-week Volunteer-delivered tutoring (Teach Your Children Well) (V-TYCW).
Table 8
Summary GRADE table (Letterbox club vs Wait List).
Table 9
Summary GRADE table (Paired-reading intervention pre- vs post-intervention).
Secondary school-age (primarily)
Table 10
Summary GRADE table (Take Charge intervention (coaching and mentoring) vs Usual Care).
Table 11
Summary GRADE table (Multidimensional treatment foster care for adolescents (MTFC-A) vs Usual Care).
Table 12
Summary GRADE table (Multidimensional treatment foster care for adolescents (MTFC-A) vs Group Care Care).
Table 13
Summary GRADE table (ESTEP tutoring programme vs No ESTEP tutoring).
Table 14
Summary GRADE table (Animal-assisted psychotherapy vs residential care as usual).
Table 15
Summary GRADE table (Animal-assisted psychotherapy vs residential care as usual).
All school-ages
Table 16
Summary GRADE table (Evolve Interagency Services, pre- vs post-intervention).
Table 17
Summary GRADE table (Child advocate volunteers vs care as usual).
See appendix F for full GRADE tables.
Economic evidence
Included studies
A systematic review was conducted to cover all questions within this guideline update. The study selection diagram is available in Appendix G. The search returned 3,197 publications since 2000. Additionally, 29 publications were identified through reference tracking. All records were excluded on basis of title and abstract for this review question. An updated search was conducted in November 2020 to identify any newly published papers. The search returned 584 publications. After screening titles and abstracts five publications were considered for full text inspection but did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded from the evidence report. Reasons for exclusion are summarised in Appendix J.
Economic model
No economic modelling was undertaken for this review question.
The committee’s discussion of the evidence
Interpreting the evidence
The outcomes that matter most
Initially, the committee considered evidence from the four interventions that were applied to support the learning needs of majority primary school aged children (up to 11 years). Of the outcomes reported, the committee considered objective literacy and numeracy education outcomes, such as word reading, reading age, sentence comprehension, spelling and maths scores to be the most important and useful outcomes for making recommendations. These outcomes were reported across all four interventions: foster-parent and volunteer-delivered tutoring programmes, letterbox, and paired reading. Positive results were reported for tutoring and paired reading.
Furthermore, the committee considered the evidence from five interventions to support learning needs in majority secondary school aged children: Take Charge (individualised coaching and group mentoring), Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care, ESTEP tutoring programme, and animal-assisted psychotherapy. Outcomes that the committee considered to be particularly useful among this evidence included scholastic/language skills score, school attendance, academic grade levels, and reading and maths scores. Engagement in educational planning score was also considered to be relevant to the UK population’s engagement in the personal education plan (PEP) and was reported as positive in a study of Take Charge coaching and mentoring.
Two studies considered interventions that were relevant for looked after children at all ages: Child Advocacy and Evolve Interagency Services. The committee considered some outcomes reported by these studies to be important – for example: passing all courses, and school expulsion by year 1, scholastic or language skills score and poor school attendance. Positive results were found for passing all courses by year 1 in child advocacy, and scholastic and language skills/school attendance for Evolve Interagency Services. The committee noted that in many cases, while the phenomenon that the outcomes were attempting to measure were important, the measures themselves may be subject to bias through self-reporting. In some cases, such as for the outcomes reported in the Child Advocacy study, it was not clear how the outcomes were being defined.
The quality of the evidence
The quality of the evidence was found to be low or very low by the criteria outlined by GRADE. One exception was outcomes reported by the UK-based study of the Letterbox club intervention, a well-designed and well-reported RCT which was judged overall to be of low risk of bias. Otherwise, there was a lack of UK evidence with only 3 of the 14 identified studies conducted in the UK, therefore the committee were careful to take into account the indirectness of these studies to current UK practice.
The committee considered other common reasons why the presented evidence was marked down for quality. For example, studies frequently failed to report how randomisation was performed or if allocation of participants was concealed; it was often unclear how many were lost to follow up or if there was missing data (and for what reason, and whether this varied between comparison groups); studies commonly failed to adequately adjust for differences between comparison groups at baseline for important variables such as behavioural problems, number of placement changes, and special educational needs; studies were frequently unblinded and did not outline a detailed protocol or analysis plan. In addition, for certain studies, outcomes may have been selectively reported (either through selective use of subscales or follow up times).
While most reported evidence used a contemporary control group, two included studies were uncontrolled before and after studies. One considered a paired reading intervention (this study was included since it was UK-based and there was a paucity of UK-based evidence), the other considered the use of an interagency “wrap-around” model of care (this study was included since there was a paucity of evidence considering interventions for looked-after children with psychological or behavioural disorders specifically). The committee considered the problems inherent in this study design. For example, the outcomes of participants in these studies may improve with time regardless of the intervention, or perhaps as a result of other interventions received during the follow up period.
The interpretation of one study was particularly problematic. The committee considered outcomes reported by one randomised trial of the ESTEP tutoring programme for which 38.2% of those assigned to the E-STEP group did not receive E-STEP services and 12.3% of those in the control group did receive ESTEP services. In addition, the study authors noted that approximately equal proportions of ESTEP and control groups received some form of tutoring (58.4% vs 60.8%).
Small sample size was also a problem for many outcomes with included studies frequently unable to differentiate between an observed effect that was non-significant and one which was greater than the pre-defined minimum important difference.
A gap in the evidence base was noted on the use of therapeutic interventions of popular interventions used in current practice such as art therapy, play therapy, occupational therapy, music therapy and psychotherapy. The committee highlighted these interventions as being known to have a positive impact on educational, social and emotional outcomes in broader populations of children. A research recommendation was therefore drafted for interventions to assess the effectiveness of these interventions on improved learning outcomes, school attendance and exclusion to help address this evidence gap. NB: while evidence from two non-randomised controlled trials was presented looking at outcomes for animal-assisted psychotherapy, the outcomes presented from this study focussed on behavioural rather than academic outcomes while at school. The committee considered that evidence for this therapy should be considered again under review questions looking at health and wellbeing for looked after children and young people.
The committee was disappointed by the lack of high-quality evidence, in particular, in secondary school-aged children which meant they were unable to make more positive recommendations for this population group. Instead a recommendation was made advising “When providing interventions to improve education in secondary school-aged looked after children, ensure ongoing evaluation of appropriateness and impact.” The committee noted that the pupil premium is often spent on interventions to improve educational outcomes (for example, tutoring) without enough evidence to say that these interventions are working in looked after children and young people. A practice of regular evaluation of these interventions could help schools select interventions that have been tried and tested over those for which the impact is unclear. This practice would have an additional benefit in increasing the amount of available data which could be used for research.
Benefits and harms
Primary school aged interventions
The committee considered the four interventions tested in majority primary school aged children: foster parent-delivered Teach Your Children Well (tutoring), volunteer-delivered Teach your Children Well (tutoring), the Letterbox club, and a paired reading intervention. It was observed in one randomised controlled trial that foster parent-delivered tutoring was associated with higher maths and sentence comprehension scores postintervention compared to a waitlist intervention. Across two randomised controlled trials volunteer-delivered tutoring was associated with improved word reading, spelling, and maths scores postintervention compared to a wait list intervention. Though very low-quality evidence overall, these were outcomes that the committee considered to be important (see above). In addition, a UK-based before-and-after study showed that a paired reading intervention was associated with a large improvement in reading age (MD 1.00 95%CI 0.24 to 1.76 years) comparing baseline to postintervention results.
The committee noted that the two RCTs considering the volunteer-delivered Teach Your Children Well tutoring programme reported consistently positive results. In one of these studies, there was significant improvements in three out of the four WRAT-4 academic outcome domains. While significant findings were also observed in the foster parent-delivered tutoring, the committee suggested that volunteers may be a more appropriate vehicle for delivering tutoring support to LACYP: it was suggested that volunteers providing tutoring programmes, especially if they are recent graduates, may be more familiar with recent teaching methods for maths and phonics than foster parents; the committee also discussed that looked after children can often benefit from building relationships with volunteers who are investing their own personal time into improving LACYP academic outcomes; finally, foster carers often report that they struggle with providing extra educational support to looked after children as they feel this creates a ‘blurring of boundaries’ between their caring and education role.
The committee also discussed the behaviour management component of the Teach Your Children Well intervention. In terms of future implementation, they highlighted that the points system for rewarding positive behaviour in the foster carer delivered “Teach Your Children Well” tutoring programme may not work for many looked after children and would require tailoring to the individual. The committee discussed points-based systems and the variety of behavioural management reward systems currently in use. It was suggested that many LACYP often need immediate rewarding (or feedback such as praise) for good behaviour rather than a points system. In some cases, children may also benefit from a points system as long as rewards are tangible and material, such as time out to engage in something they enjoy.
Based on the above discussions, the committee decided to recommend tutoring for improving educational outcomes in primary school-aged looked after children. Tutoring could be delivered by foster carers, volunteers, or professional tutors, but the committee considered it was important that tutors were trained (as in the evidence base). In addition, tutoring could take place individually or in small groups.
The committee also considered one UK-based before and after study looking at a paired reading intervention. While very low-quality evidence, the committee were impressed by the large effect size observed in this study (i.e. that participants improved their reading age by a year over 16 weeks). Given the liaison between the school and the carer described in the study, the committee considered that this intervention also had potential for increasing links and engagement between foster carers and schools.
Despite the quality of the evidence for paired reading being very low by the criteria outlined by GRADE, the committee decided that a strong ‘offer’ recommendation was still warranted. This was based on expert consensus. The committee considered paired reading to be a simple, cheap, and already widely used intervention in primary schools (with parents often encouraged to engage in paired reading) in addition this intervention was known to have a good evidence base, and historical use, outside of looked after children. Paired reading was also considered to have a relational aspect, improving quality time spent between carer and child. It was also suggested that older students in primary school (e.g. Year 6) can engage in paired reading with younger students which may also provide an important mentoring role.
Despite being a well-known intervention with evidence from a well conducted high quality trial, the Letterbox club intervention did not report any significant benefit on educational outcomes in looked after children. The trial stated “As a book gifting scheme directed at the child, the intervention does not rely on, expect or demand foster carer involvement and, as such, there is no manual or guidance for carers about how and in what ways they/the child should engage with the parcel.” However, the committee stated that this was not the usual guidance and support provided by Letterbox to foster carers to promote the implementation and use of the intervention. The committee considered that the Letterbox intervention is often used in combination with strategies such as paired reading to promote the use of their parcels. Additional, untested, benefits include the fact that (in the experience of the committee) foster children frequently find it very meaningful to receive mail and a letter addressed to them personally. However, it was conceded that for some children the Letterbox club books were left stacked and unused.
Potential harms of the letterbox intervention were also considered, for example the Letterbox club intervention was noted for being popular amongst LACYP however this intervention could have a negative impact on relationships in the household through disappointment and jealously amongst other (non-looked after) children in a foster home who don’t receive a parcel. The committee reported anecdotal evidence of foster carers contacting Letterbox asking if they can purchase additional Letterbox parcels for other children. The committee agreed to delay judgement on this intervention until qualitative evidence had been considered.
The Letterbox club intervention is a well-known UK intervention targeted at LACYP and the committee noted that the intervention was popular amongst LACYP as it is personalised and attractively presented. The committee noted that the intervention also helped build a sense of identity amongst LACYP. However, this intervention did not report any significant benefit on education outcomes such as reading or recreational reading skills scores.
Secondary school aged interventions
Four interventions aimed at primarily secondary school-aged children, were considered: Take Charge (coaching and mentoring); Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care; ESTEP tutoring; and animal-assisted psychotherapy.
Take Charge was associated with improvements in the (self-reported) number of hours spent doing homework postintervention, a total count of self-reported educational accomplishments at postintervention, and mean youth knowledge and engagement in educational planning (student and parent reported). However, the committee considered these outcomes to be mostly surrogate and unable to show that academic outcomes were improved.
Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care was considered as a highly intensive intervention for LACYP with severe emotional/behavioural disorders and unstable placements. One UK-based randomised trial was not able to differentiate an effect for Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MDTFC) on scholastic/language skills or odds of higher school attendance. The USA-based RCT found that MDTFC was associated with improved homework completion score, and school attendance score on follow up. The committee found that the academic outcomes reported by these studies were insufficient to recommend its use on the basis of academic outcomes alone. The committee decided to consider this intervention again for its use in improving the health/wellbeing, relationships, and placement stability of LACYP.
One study found evidence of no meaningful effect of ESTEP tutoring on grade level, academic outcomes, and school behaviour. The committee discounted results reported in the RCT study of the ESTEP tutoring programme due to considerable cross-over between intervention and comparison groups meaning that (by the end of the study) similar proportions of participants in both groups had received some form of tutoring.
Finally, the committee considered results from two non-randomised controlled trials considering the use of animal assisted psychotherapy in youth in residential care with emotional behavioural disorders. This study found improvements in teacher-rated school maladjustment and adaptive skills in the intervention group. Once again, the committee found that the academic outcomes reported by these studies were insufficient to recommend its use on the basis of academic outcomes alone. The committee agreed that it may be a useful intervention in children experiencing trauma and decided to consider this intervention again for its use in improving the health/wellbeing, relationships, and placement stability of LACYP in later evidence reviews. However, the committee were particularly interested in the use of therapeutic strategies to support the education of LACYP with mental health problems or emotional and behavioural disorders. Therefore, a research recommendation was drafted: What is the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of therapeutic interventions for improving learning outcomes and school attendance and exclusion in educational settings for looked after children? (for example: art therapy, play therapy, occupational therapy, music therapy, psychotherapy, animal-assisted psychotherapy, and therapeutic foster carer training.
In the absence of strong evidence, the committee discussed tutoring amongst LACYP attending secondary school. In current practice a large amount of money is spent on tutoring, however there is a lack of evidence showing effectiveness for this intervention for LACYP. In stead the committee recommended that interventions for improving education in secondary school-aged looked-after young people are regularly evaluated to check they are appropriate for the user and effective.
All ages
The committee considered the findings from the Child Advocate Volunteers intervention which was aimed at both primary and secondary school aged LACYP and showed improvements in passing all courses and reports of poor conduct by 1 year follow up. However, these outcomes were not clearly defined. The committee agreed with the need for child advocacy, however, highlighted a problem in the implementation of this intervention in which there is a high turnover in child advocates. There is often a difficulty in finding advocates to maintain a long-term relationship with LACYP. Training and support would also be needed for advocates. The committee noted that advocacy is supposed to be the role of the independent visitor in UK practice.
Finally, the committee considered evidence from a before and after study considering Evolve Interagency Services, a wrap around model of care for LACYP presenting with psychological and behavioural disorders. This study found improvements in scholastic/language and school attendance when comparing pre and postintervention outcomes. Participants in this study received a range of therapeutic interventions, of different intensity and duration. Therefore, the committee were unable to extrapolate the impact of the wrap-around model of care itself since the study had no contemporary control group.
Cost effectiveness and resource use
There were no published cost-effectiveness analyses addressing this review question and no original economic modelling was undertaken due to the limited amount of effectiveness evidence for key educational outcomes. In discussing the evidence, the committee took into consideration the type of resource use that would be required to deliver each intervention.
Among primary school aged looked after children, the “Teach Your Children Well” tutoring programme and paired-reading interventions were delivered by foster carers and volunteers. In the studies, tutoring was delivered at an intensity of 3 hours per week and paired reading for 20 minutes or more 3 times per week. Overall, these interventions were not expected to be very costly. However, the committee recognised that even interventions that have an apparently low cost (such as those delivered by volunteers) are likely to have hidden costs such as the carer or volunteer time, training, travel and administrative support. The committee commented that some carers may not want to take on the responsibility for tutoring as this can blur the line between the carer and educator roles.
It was highlighted that foster carers would benefit from extra support or training from schools on active reading. Infrastructure may be needed to support this and to train volunteer paired readers. The committee noted the important role that virtual schools play in supporting and training not only teaching staff but also foster carers, and that therefore they may be best placed to deliver training in paired reading to foster parents. Overall, the committee felt that the resource impact of tutoring programmes and paired-reading interventions would be limited and could be funded as part of the pupil premium.
The interventions involving secondary school participants were perceived as being more resource intensive. MTFC in particular was associated with 9-month placements with full-time specialist foster carers and continuous multidisciplinary team support. Take Charge was delivered weekly over 9 months period and required coaches to undergo formal training and be mentored on a weekly basis. Given the available evidence, the committee did not feel these interventions were an effective use of resources to support learning needs in LACYP.
The committee agreed that the resource impact of these recommendations is low. Paired reading is currently offered to all children in primary schools, so no additional resource is required. Individual or small group tutoring has the potential to also have a low resource impact especially if delivered by trained foster carers or trained volunteers. The use of professional tutors may have resource implications, however, these interventions can be prioritised for funding through the Pupil Premium which is part of statutory education funding provision for LACYP.
References – included studies
- Balluerka, Nekane, Muela, Alexander, Amiano, Nora et al. (2015) Promoting psychosocial adaptation of youths in residential care through animal-assisted psychotherapy.. Child abuse & neglect 50: 193–205 [PubMed: 26443670]
- Courtney, Mark E., Zinn, Andrew, Zielewski, Erica H. et al. (2008) Evaluation of the Early Start to Emancipation Preparation Tutoring Program, Los Angeles County, California: Final Report. Administration for Children & Families: 1–129
- Flynn, Robert J, Marquis, Robyn A, Paquet, Marie-Pierre et al. (2012) Effects of individual direct-instruction tutoring on foster children’s academic skills: A randomized trial.. Children and Youth Services Review 34(6): 1183–1189
- Forsman, Hilma; Foster carers’ experiences of a paired reading literacy intervention with looked-after children.; Child & Family Social Work; 2017; vol. 22 (no. 1); 409–418
- Geenen, Sarah, Powers, Laurie E, Powers, Jennifer et al. (2013) Experimental study of a self-determination intervention for youth in foster care.. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 36(2): 84–95
- Green, J M, Biehal, N, Roberts, C et al. (2014) Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care for Adolescents in English care: randomised trial and observational cohort evaluation.. The British journal of psychiatry : the journal of mental science 204(3): 214–21 [PubMed: 24357575]
- Griffiths, Rose; The Letterbox Club: An account of a postal club to raise the achievement of children aged 7 to 13 in foster care.; Children and Youth Services Review; 2012; vol. 34 (no. 6); 1101–1106
- Harper, Julie and Schmidt, Fred (2012) Preliminary effects of a group-based tutoring program for children in long-term foster care.. Children and Youth Services Review 34(6): 1176–1182
- Harper, Julie and Schmidt, Fred (2016) Effectiveness of a group-based academic tutoring program for children in foster care: A randomized controlled trial.. Children and Youth Services Review 67: 238–246
- HICKEY Andrea, J. and FLYNN Robert, J. (2020) A randomized evaluation of 15 versus 25 weeks of individual tutoring for children in care. Children and Youth Services Review 109: 104697
- Klag S, Fox T, Martin G, Eadie K, Bergh W, Keegan F, Turner D, Raeburn N. Evolve therapeutic services: A 5-year outcome study of children and young people in out-of-home care with complex and extreme behavioural and mental health problems. Children and Youth Services Review. 2016 Oct 1;69:268–74.
- Leve, Leslie D and Chamberlain, Patricia (2007) A randomized evaluation of multidimensional treatment foster care: Effects on school attendance and homework completion in juvenile justice girls.. Research on Social Work Practice 17(6): 657–663 [PMC free article: PMC2151756] [PubMed: 18159224]
- Mooney, Jennifer, Winter, Karen, Connolly, Paul et al. (2016) Effects of a book gifting programme on literacy outcomes for foster children: A randomised controlled trial evaluation of the Letterbox Club in Northern Ireland.. Children and Youth Services Review 65: 1–8
- Muela, Alexander, Balluerka, Nekane, Amiano, Nora et al. (2017) Animal-assisted psychotherapy for young people with behavioural problems in residential care.. Clinical psychology & psychotherapy 24(6): o1485–o1494 [PubMed: 28730756]
- OSBORNE Cara; ALFANO Julia; WINN Tanya (2010) Paired reading as a literacy intervention for foster children. Adoption and Fostering 34(4): 17–26
- Waxman, Hersh C, Houston, W Robert, Profilet, Susan M et al. (2009) The long-term effects of the Houston Child Advocates, Inc., program on children and family outcomes.. Child welfare 88(6): 23–46 [PubMed: 20695290]
- Zinn, Andrew and Courtney, Mark E (2014) Context matters: Experimental evaluation of home-based tutoring for youth in foster care.. Children and Youth Services Review 47(part3): 198–204
Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness
No cost-effectiveness evidence was identified for this review question
Appendices
Appendix A. Review protocols
Review protocol for interventions to support learning needs for looked-after children and young people (PDF, 282K)
Appendix B. Literature search strategies
Effectiveness searches (PDF, 257K)
Cost-effectiveness searches (PDF, 381K)
Appendix C. Evidence study selection
Download PDF (137K)
Appendix D. Evidence tables
Effectiveness studies (randomised controlled trials) (PDF, 659K)
Effectiveness studies (non-randomised controlled studies) (PDF, 415K)
Effectiveness studies (uncontrolled studies) (PDF, 285K)
Qualitative studies (PDF, 388K)
Appendix E. Forest plots
No forest plots were produced for this review question as meta-analysis was not attempted.
Appendix G. Economic evidence study selection
Download PDF (142K)
Appendix H. Economic evidence tables
No economic evidence was identified for this review question.
Appendix I. Health economic model
No economic modelling was undertaken for this review question.
Appendix J. Excluded studies
Effectiveness studies
| Study | Code [Reason] |
|---|---|
| (2010) Sharing Data between Child Welfare and Education to Improve Outcomes for Children and Youth in the Foster Care System. Policy Brief. Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning: 1–4 | - Not a peer-reviewed publication |
| Bastiaanssen, Inge L. W, Delsing, Marc J. M. H, Geijsen, Luuk et al. (2014) Observations of group care worker-child interaction in residential youth care: Pedagogical interventions and child behavior.. Child & Youth Care Forum 43(2): 227–241 | - Study does not contain a relevant intervention |
| Bean, Pamela, White, Ladd, Neagle, Lee et al. (2005) Is residential care an effective approach for treating adolescents with co-occurring substance abuse and mental health diagnoses?. Best Practices in Mental Health: An International Journal 1(2): 50–60 | No indication that this population is looked after |
| Berridge, David (2017) The education of children in care: Agency and resilience.. Children and Youth Services Review 77: 86–93 |
To be considered for inclusion under a different review question: - RQ4.4 |
| Brannstrom, Lars; Vinnerljung, Bo; Hjern, Anders (2013) Long-term outcomes of Sweden’s Contact Family Program for children.. Child abuse & neglect 37(6): 404–14 [PubMed: 23490057] | No indication that this population is looked after |
| Clemens, Elysia V, Klopfenstein, Kristin, Lalonde, Trent L et al. (2018) The effects of placement and school stability on academic growth trajectories of students in foster care.. Children and Youth Services Review 87: 86–94 | - Not an investigation of an intervention |
| Crosby, Shantel D, Somers, Cheryl L, Day, Angelique G et al. (2017) Examining school attachment, social support, and trauma symptomatology among court-involved, female students.. Journal of Child and Family Studies 26(9): 2539–2546 | - Not an investigation of an intervention |
| Denecheau B. (2011) Children in residential care and school engagement or school ‘dropout’: What makes the difference in terms of policies and practices in england and france?. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 16(3): 277–287 |
-To be considered for inclusion under a different review question: - RQ4.4 |
| Dickinson, Janet and Miller, Mandy (2002) Complex Learning Difficulties and EBD. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 7(4): 197–206 | - Intervention description/practice report |
| Durbeej, Natalie and Hellner, Clara (2017) Improving school performance among Swedish foster children: A quasi-experimental study exploring outcomes of the Skolfam model.. Children and Youth Services Review 82: 466–476 |
-Intervention describes the use of an education plan with a multidisciplinary team (covered by statutory care but check with committee) -Not included under this question since uncontrolled before and after study Also, to be considered for inclusion under a different review question: - RQ2.1 - RQ3.2 |
| Dymoke, Sue and Griffiths, Rose (2010) The Letterbox Club: The impact on looked-after children and their carers of a national project aimed at raising achievements in literacy for children aged 7 to 11 in foster care.. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs 10(1): 52–60 |
-To be considered for inclusion under a different review question: - RQ4.4 |
| Ennis, Robin Parks, Jolivette, Kristine, Boden, Lauren J et al. (2013) STOP and DARE: Self-regulated strategy development for persuasive writing with elementary students with E/BD in a residential facility.. Education & Treatment of Children 36(3): 81–99 | -No indication that this population is looked after |
| Evans, Rhiannon, Brown, Rachel, Rees, Gwyther et al. (2017) Systematic review of educational interventions for looked-after children and young people: Recommendations for intervention development and evaluation.. British Educational Research Journal 43(1): 68–94 [PMC free article: PMC5299458] [PubMed: 28239209] | -Systematic review, checked for relevant citations |
| Feuerstein R., Rand Y., Hoffman M. et al. (2004) Cognitive modifiability in retarded adolescents: Effects of Instrumental Enrichment. Pediatric Rehabilitation 7(1): 20–29 [PubMed: 14744671] |
-Unclear that adolescents are looked after (study refers to their parents and number of children per family - Non-UK setting (Israel) |
| Finn, Jerry and Kerman, Ben (2004) Internet Risks for Foster Families Online.. Journal of Technology in Human Services 22(4): 21–38 |
- Study does not contain a relevant intervention (Ruled out by committee as not being an intervention of interest: providing internet access to foster families) - Non-UK setting |
| Finn, Jerry, Kerman, Ben, LeCornec, Juliette et al. (2005) Reducing the Digital Divide for Children in Foster Care: First-Year Evaluation of the Building Skills-Building Futures Program.. Research on Social Work Practice 15(6): 470–480 |
- Study does not contain a relevant intervention (Ruled out by committee as not being an intervention of interest: providing internet access to foster families) - Non-UK setting |
| FLETCHER-CAMPBELL Felicity (2001) Issues of inclusion. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties 6(2): 69–89 | - Qualitative study published prior to 2010 (original qualitative data collected and published prior to 2000; also no methods described) |
| Fox, Paul and Avramidis, Elias (2003) An evaluation of an outdoor education programme for students with emotional and behavioural difficulties.. Emotional & Behavioural Difficulties 8(4): 267–283 |
-To be considered for inclusion under a different review question: - RQ4.4 |
| Francis, Yvonne J, Bennion, Kim, Humrich, Sarah et al. (2017) Evaluating the outcomes of a school based Theraplay project for looked after children.. Educational Psychology in Practice 33(3): 308–322 | -To be considered for inclusion under a different review question |
| Gairal-Casado, Regina, Garcia-Yeste, Carme, Novo-Molinero, Maria Teresa et al. (2019) Out of school learning scientific workshops: Stimulating institutionalized Adolescents’ educational aspirations. Children and Youth Services Review 103: 116–126 | - non-UK qualitative study |
| Griffiths, Rose (2012) The Letterbox Club: An account of a postal club to raise the achievement of children aged 7 to 13 in foster care.. Children and Youth Services Review 34(6): 1101–1106 |
- Quantitative data incomplete (no measure of spread or statistical significance of difference) -To be considered for inclusion under a different review question: - RQ4.4 |
| Hooper, S R, Murphy, J, Devaney, A et al. (2000) Ecological outcomes of adolescents in a psychoeducational residential treatment facility.. The American journal of orthopsychiatry 70(4): 491–500 [PubMed: 11086527] | - Unclear that population are LACYP |
| HOPKINS Graham (2003) It all clicks into place. Community Care 61103: 42–43 | - Not a peer-reviewed publication |
| HOPKINS Graham (2003) Small steps, giant leaps. Community Care 131103: 42–43 | - Not a peer-reviewed publication |
| Horwitz, S M; Owens, P; Simms, M D (2000) Specialized assessments for children in foster care.. Pediatrics 106(1pt1): 59–66 [PubMed: 10878150] |
-To be considered for inclusion under a different review question: - RQ3.1 |
| ICF Consulting Services; Arad Research; Cardiff University (2019) Evaluation of the implementation of the Pupil Development Grant for Looked after Children: final report (Welsh Government social research no 1/2019).: 154 |
- Not an intervention of interest (Descriptive study of grant and its spending on various interventions) |
|
ISRCTN19090228 (2017) Confidence in Care Evaluation. Http://www | - RCT protocol |
| JAY Matthew, A. and McGRATH-LONE, Louise (2019) Educational outcomes of children in contact with social care in England: a systematic review. Systematic reviews 8(155) [PMC free article: PMC6599338] [PubMed: 31253197] | - Systematic review |
| Johnson, Sara B; Pryce, Julia M; Martinovich, Zoran (2011) The role of therapeutic mentoring in enhancing outcomes for youth in foster care.. Child welfare 90(5): 51–69 [PubMed: 22533054] | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Kim, Hyoun K and Leve, Leslie D (2011) Substance use and delinquency among middle school girls in foster care: a three-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial.. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 79(6): 740–50 [PMC free article: PMC3226884] [PubMed: 22004305] | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| LARZELERE Robert E. and et al (2001) Outcomes of residential treatment: a study of the adolescent clients of girls and boys town. Child and Youth Care Forum 30(3): 175–185 | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Larzelere, Robert E, Daly, Daniel L, Davis, Jerry L et al. (2004) Outcome Evaluation of Girls and Boys Town’s Family Home Program.. Education and Treatment of Children 27(2): 130–149 | - Data not reported in an extractable format |
| Lee, Kyunghee (2016) Head Start’s impact on cognitive outcomes for children in foster care.. Child Abuse Review 25(2): 128–141 | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| LEWIS Helen (2000) Improving health care and health education: for looked after young people. Childrens Residential Care Unit Newsletter 13: 5–6 | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Liabo, Kristin; Gray, Kerry; Mulcahy, David (2013) A systematic review of interventions to support looked-after children in school, IN Child and Family Social Work, Vol 18 No 3 Aug 2013. | -Systematic review, considered for relevant references |
| Lin, Ching-Hsuan (2014) Evaluating services for kinship care families: A systematic review.. Children and Youth Services Review 36: 32–41 | -Systematic review, considered for relevant references |
| Littlewood, Kerry A, Strozier, Anne L, Whittington, Danielle et al. (2014) Kin as Teachers: An early childhood education and support intervention for kinship families.. Children and Youth Services Review 38: 1–9 |
- No outcome of interest reported [Surrogate outcomes: e.g. parents knowledge of development and home environment] |
| MANNISTO Inka I. and PIRTTIMAA Raija A. (2018) A review of interventions to support the educational attainments of children and adolescents in foster care. Adoption and Fostering 42(3): 266–281 | -Systematic review, considered for relevant references |
| McMillen J.C., Narendorf S.C., Robinson D. et al. (2015) Development and piloting of a treatment foster care program for older youth with psychiatric problems. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health 9(1): 23 [PMC free article: PMC4504401] [PubMed: 26185524] | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Melius, Patience, Swoszowski, Nicole Cain, Siders, Jim et al. (2015) Developing peer led check-in/check-out: A peer-mentoring program for children in residential care.. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth 32(1): 58–79 | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Moffat, Shaye and Vincent, Cynthia (2009) Emergent literacy and childhood literacy-promoting activities for children in the Ontario Child Welfare System.. Vulnerable Children and Youth Studies 4(2): 135–141 | - No outcome of interest reported |
|
NCT00056303 (2003) Mental Health Services for Foster and Adopted Children. Https: | - RCT protocol |
|
NCT00239837 (2005) Prevention Program for Problem Behaviors in Girls in Foster Care. Https: | - RCT protocol |
|
NCT00701194 (2008) Early Intervention Foster Care: a Prevention Trial. Https: | - RCT protocol |
|
NCT00810056 (2008) Fostering Healthy Futures Efficacy Trial for Preadolescent Youth in Foster Care. Https: | - RCT protocol |
|
NCT02037750 (2014) Foster Teens’ Risk During Transition. Https: | - RCT protocol |
|
NCT02113085 (2012) My Life: evaluation of Self-determination Enhancement for Adolescents in Foster Care. Https: | - RCT protocol |
|
NCT02217072 (2014) Educational Support Interventions for Children in Care. Https: | - RCT protocol |
|
NCT04027257 (2019) Sit Together and Read (STAR): a Pilot Study of Children and Their Kinship Caregivers. https: | - RCT trial registry |
| NELSON Justine G.; GIBSON Priscilla A.; BAUER Jean W. (2010) Kinship care and “child-only” welfare grants: low participation despite potential benefits. Journal of Family Social Work 13(1): 3–24 | - Not an investigation of an intervention |
| Nilsen, Wendy (2007) Fostering futures: a preventive intervention program for school-age children in foster care.. Clinical child psychology and psychiatry 12(1): 45–63 [PubMed: 17378079] | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Noam G.G. and Hermann C.A. (2002) Where education and mental health meet: Developmental prevention and early intervention in schools. Development and Psychopathology 14(4): 861–875 [PubMed: 12549707] | - Intervention description/practice report |
| O’Higgins, Aoife; Ott, Eleanor Marie; Shea, Michael William (2018) What is the Impact of Placement Type on Educational and Health Outcomes of Unaccompanied Refugee Minors? A Systematic Review of the Evidence.. Clinical child and family psychology review 21(3): 354–365 [PubMed: 29623526] | -Systematic review, considered for relevant references |
| Osei, Gershon K, Gorey, Kevin M, Hernandez Jozefowicz, Debra M et al. (2016) Delinquency and crime prevention: Overview of research comparing treatment foster care and group care.. Child & Youth Care Forum 45(1): 33–46 | -Systematic review, considered for relevant references |
| Pandya, Samta P (2018) Spirituality for wellbeing of bereaved children in residential care: Insights for spiritually sensitive child-centred social work across country contexts.. Child & Adolescent Social Work Journal 35(2): 181–195 |
- Non-OECD country [Some participants from US and Canada but majority from non-OECD and results not stratified] |
| Panerai, Simonetta, Zingale, Marinella, Trubia, Grazia et al. (2009) Special education versus inclusive education: the role of the TEACCH program.. Journal of autism and developmental disorders 39(6): 874–82 [PubMed: 19205860] |
- Unclear that population are LACYP - Unclear that population are LACYP |
| Parker, Elisabeth (2017) An actor-network theory reading of change for children in public care.. British Educational Research Journal 43(1): 151–167 | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Petit Zeman S (2000) Healing the scars of war. TIMES EDUCATIONAL SUPPLEMENT: 26–27 |
- Not a relevant study design [magazine article] |
| Pratt, Megan E, Lipscomb, Shannon T, Schmitt, Sara A et al. (2015) The effect of head start on parenting outcomes for children living in non-parental care.. Journal of Child and Family Studies 24(10): 2944–2956 | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Preyde, M., Frensch, K., Cameron, G. et al. (2011) Long-Term Outcomes of Children and Youth Accessing Residential or Intensive Home-Based Treatment: Three Year Follow up. Journal of Child and Family Studies 20(5): 660–668 |
- Unclear that population are LACYP [No subgroup analysis for LACYP] |
| Preyde, Michele, Adams, Gerald, Cameron, Gary et al. (2009) Outcomes of Children Participating in Mental Health Residential and Intensive Family Services: Preliminary Findings. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth 26(1): 1–20 |
- Unclear that population are LACYP [No subgroup analysis for children in care] |
| Riitano D. and Pearson A. (2014) The effectiveness of interventions designed to improve academic outcomes in children and adolescents in out-of-home care: A systematic review protocol. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports 12(1): 13–22 | - Not a relevant study design |
| Ringle, Jay L, Thompson, Ronald W, Way, Mona et al. (2015) Reunifying families after an out-of-home residential stay: Evaluation of a blended intervention.. Journal of Child and Family Studies 24(7): 2079–2087 | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Roberts, Jennifer, Winter, Karen, Connolly, Paul et al. (2017) The Letterbox Club book gifting intervention: Findings from a qualitative evaluation accompanying a randomised controlled trial.. Children and Youth Services Review 73: 467–473 | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Rogers, Anita and Henkin, Nancy (2000) School-based interventions for children in kinship care.. Grandparents raising grandchildren: Theoretical, empirical, and clinical perspectives.: 221–238 |
- Data not reported in an extractable format [No evaluation data provided] |
| Sanders, Michael and et al (2020) What works in education for children who have had social workers? Summary report.: 56 | exclude due to mixed population – “children who have had a social worker” |
| Shoham, Edna and Shiloah, Neomi (2001) The project for the education of Israeli children in the kibbutz movement.. Child & Youth Services 22(12): 37–53 | - no methods described |
| Sloan, Frank A, Gifford, Elizabeth J, Eldred, Lindsey M et al. (2013) Do specialty courts achieve better outcomes for children in foster care than general courts?.. Evaluation review 37(1): 3–34 [PubMed: 23737613] | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Soenen, Bram, Goethals, Ilse, Spriet, Eline et al. (2009) Effects of the combination of life space crisis interventions and a level system at the therapeutic treatment centre ‘Heynsdaele’-A special school and home for youth with behavioural and emotional problems.. Therapeutic Communities 30(2): 200–216 | - Unclear that population are LACYP |
| Soenen, Bram, Volckaert, Annelies, D’Oosterlinck, Franky et al. (2014) The implementation of life space crisis intervention in residential care and special education for children and adolescents with EBD: an effect study.. The Psychiatric quarterly 85(3): 267–84 [PubMed: 24570221] |
- Unclear that these were looked after children (focus on emotional and behavioural disorders) - Non-UK, interrupted time series study. -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| STATHART Chloe (2011) Read all about it. Community Care 130111: 20–21 |
- Not a relevant study design [editorial (not a research paper)] |
| Strozier, Anne L, Elrod, Brent, Beiler, Pam et al. (2004) Developing a network of support for relative caregivers.. Children and Youth Services Review 26(7): 641–656 | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Taussig, Heather N and Culhane, Sara E (2010) Impact of a mentoring and skills group program on mental health outcomes for maltreated children in foster care.. Archives of pediatrics & adolescent medicine 164(8): 739–46 [PMC free article: PMC3009469] [PubMed: 20679165] | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Taussig, Heather N, Culhane, Sara E, Garrido, Edward et al. (2013) Does severity of physical neglect moderate the impact of an efficacious preventive intervention for maltreated children in foster care?.. Child maltreatment 18(1): 56–64 [PMC free article: PMC4312758] [PubMed: 23076837] |
- Data not reported in an extractable format [Analysis to find a moderating effect of a subgroup not listed in the protocol on intervention effects. No raw data presented.] |
| Taussig, Heather N; Culhane, Sara E; Hettleman, Daniel (2007) Fostering healthy futures: an innovative preventive intervention for preadolescent youth in out-of-home care.. Child welfare 86(5): 113–31 [PMC free article: PMC2613856] [PubMed: 18422051] |
- Not a relevant study design [RCT protocol] |
| Taussig, Heather N, Culhane, Sara E, Raviv, Tali et al. (2010) Mentoring Children in Foster Care: Impact on Graduate Student Mentors.. Educational horizons 89(1): 17–32 [PMC free article: PMC4022595] [PubMed: 24839302] |
- No outcome of interest reported [Not foster children related outcomes] |
| Taussig, Heather, Weiler, Lindsey, Rhodes, Tara et al. (2015) Fostering healthy futures for teens: Adaptation of an evidence-based program.. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research 6(4): 617–642 [PMC free article: PMC4803110] [PubMed: 27019678] |
- No outcome of interest reported [Acceptability outcomes] - Survey extracted views (not true qualitative) |
| TIDEMAN Eva and et al (2011) Improving foster children’s school achievements - promising results from a Swedish intensive study. Adoption and Fostering 35(1): 44–56 |
Excluded under this review question as non-UK uncontrolled before-and-after study and comparative evidence was available -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| TORDON Rikard; VINNERLJUNG Bo; AXELSSON Ulla (2014) Improving foster children’s school performance: a replication of the Helsingborg study. Adoption and Fostering 38(1): 37–48 | Excluded under this review question as non-UK uncontrolled before-and-after study and comparative evidence was available |
| Tordon, Rikard, Bladh, Marie, Sydsjo, Gunilla et al. (2020) Improved Intelligence, Literacy and Mathematic Skills Following School-Based Intervention for Children in Foster Care. Frontiers in psychology 11: 718 [PMC free article: PMC7194231] [PubMed: 32390912] | - non-UK qualitative before and after study |
| Trout, Alexandra L, Lambert, Matthew C, Epstein, Michael H et al. (2013) Comparison of On the Way Home aftercare supports to traditional care following discharge from a residential setting: a pilot randomized controlled trial.. Child welfare 92(3): 27–45 [PubMed: 24818429] | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Tyler, Patrick M, Thompson, Ronald W, Trout, Alexandra L et al. (2017) Important elements of aftercare services for youth departing group homes.. Journal of Child and Family Studies 26(6): 1603–1613 | - Survey extracted views (not true qualitative study) |
| Tyre, Ashli D (2012) Educational supports for middle school youths involved in the foster care system.. Children & Schools 34(4): 231–238 |
- Non-UK setting -Unclear that all students were looked after at the time of intervention - Excluded under this review question as non-UK uncontrolled before-and-after study and better-quality evidence was available |
| Tyrer, Rebecca A and Fazel, Mina (2014) School and community-based interventions for refugee and asylum seeking children: a systematic review.. PloS one 9(2): e89359 [PMC free article: PMC3933416] [PubMed: 24586715] | -Systematic review, checked for relevant citations |
| Van Dam L., Smit D., Wildschut B. et al. (2018) Does Natural Mentoring Matter? A Multilevel Meta-analysis on the Association Between Natural Mentoring and Youth Outcomes. American journal of community psychology 62(12): 203–220 [PMC free article: PMC6174947] [PubMed: 29691865] | - Not an intervention of interest |
| VINNERLJUNG Bo and et al (2014) Paired Reading for foster children: results from a Swedish replication of an English literacy intervention. Adoption and Fostering 38(4): 361–373 |
- Not a relevant study design [Excluded under review question 4.2 since this was a non-UK-based uncontrolled before-and-after study, and comparative evidence was available] |
| WASHINGTON Gregory and et al (2007) African-American boys in relative care and a culturally centered group mentoring approach. Social Work with Groups 30(1): 45–69 | - No outcome of interest reported |
| WEINBERG Lois A.; OSHIRO Michael; SHEA Nancy M. (2014) Education liaisons work to improve educational outcomes of foster youth: A mixed methods case study. Children and Youth Services Review 41: 45–52 |
- Study does not contain a relevant intervention [Excluded under review question 4.2 and 4.4 since educational liaisons are not an intervention of interest - and are statutory in the UK] - Non-UK setting, uncontrolled study |
| Weis, Robert; Wilson, Nicole L; Whitemarsh, Savannah M (2005) Evaluation of a voluntary, military-style residential treatment program for adolescents with academic and conduct problems.. Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53 34(4): 692–705 [PubMed: 16232066] | looked after children appear to be a subset of this study with no subgroup analysis for this group |
| WEYTS Arabella (2004) The educational achievements of looked after children: do welfare systems make a difference to outcomes?. Adoption and Fostering 28(3): 7–19 |
- Not an intervention of interest [impact of welfare systems and comparison of foster and residential care] |
| Williams, Sarah C, Fanolis, Verba, Schamess, Gerald et al. (2001) Adapting the Pynoos school based group therapy model for use with foster children: Theoretical and process considerations.. Journal of Child & Adolescent Group Therapy 11(23): 57–76 | -No outcomes of interest to this review question |
| Zetlin, Andrea G; Weinberg, Lois A; Kimm, Christina (2005) Helping social workers address the educational needs of foster children.. Child abuse & neglect 29(7): 811–23 [PubMed: 16051354] |
- Not an intervention of interest [Training for social workers and access to an educational liaison - education liaisons are statutory in the UK (e.g. designated teachers and virtual school heads)] - Non-UK setting - Not LACYP specific outcomes |
| Zetlin, Andrea, Weinberg, Lois, Kimm, Christina et al. (2004) Improving Education Outcomes for Children in Foster Care: Intervention by an Education Liaison.. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 9(4): 421–429 |
- Study does not contain a relevant intervention [Advocacy by education liaison from the school system: already a statutory requirement] - Non-UK setting |
Cost-effectiveness studies
| Study | Reason for exclusion |
|---|---|
| Bennett, C.E.; Wood, J.N.; Scribano, P.V. (2020) Health Care Utilization for Children in Foster Care. Academic Pediatrics 20(3): 341–347 [PubMed: 31622784] |
- Exclude - compared LAC with non-LAC - Exclude - non-relevant outcomes |
| DIXON, Jo (2011) How the care system could be improved. Community Care 17211: 16–17 | - Exclude - not an economic evaluation |
| Huefner, Jonathan C, Ringle, Jay L, Thompson, Ronald W et al. (2018) Economic evaluation of residential length of stay and long-term outcomes. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth 35(3): 192–208 | - Exclude - costs not applicable to the UK perspective |
| LOFHOLM Cecilia, Andree; OLSSON Tina, M.; SUNDELL, Knut (2020) Effectiveness and costs of a therapeutic residential care program for adolescents with a serious behavior problem (MultifunC). Short-term results of a non-randomized controlled trial. Residential Treatment for Children and Youth 37(3): 226–243 | - Exclude - population not specific to LACYP |
| Lovett, Nicholas and Xue, Yuhan (2020) Family First or the Kindness of Strangers? Foster Care Placements and Adult Outcomes. Labour Economics 65(0) | - Exclude - not an economic evaluation |
Appendix K. Research recommendations – full details
Research recommendation (PDF, 133K)
Appendix L. References
Other references
None
Appendix M. Other appendix
No additional information for this review question.
Final
Evidence reviews underpinning recommendations 1.6.16 to 1.6.17
These evidence reviews were developed by NICE Guideline Updates Team
Disclaimer: The recommendations in this guideline represent the view of NICE, arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. When exercising their judgement, professionals are expected to take this guideline fully into account, alongside the individual needs, preferences and values of their patients or service users. The recommendations in this guideline are not mandatory and the guideline does not override the responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or their carer or guardian.
Local commissioners and/or providers have a responsibility to enable the guideline to be applied when individual health professionals and their patients or service users wish to use it. They should do so in the context of local and national priorities for funding and developing services, and in light of their duties to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to reduce health inequalities. Nothing in this guideline should be interpreted in a way that would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.
NICE guidelines cover health and care in England. Decisions on how they apply in other UK countries are made by ministers in the Welsh Government, Scottish Government, and Northern Ireland Executive. All NICE guidance is subject to regular review and may be updated or withdrawn.
- Review Interventions to support readiness for school in looked-after children and young people: Looked-After Children and Young People: Evidence review H[ 2021]Review Interventions to support readiness for school in looked-after children and young people: Looked-After Children and Young People: Evidence review H. 2021 Oct
- Review Barriers to, and facilitators for, supporting learning needs of looked-after children and young people: Looked-After Children and Young People: Evidence review K[ 2021]Review Barriers to, and facilitators for, supporting learning needs of looked-after children and young people: Looked-After Children and Young People: Evidence review K. 2021 Oct
- Review Interventions to support entry into further or higher education or training in looked-after children and young people: Looked-After Children and Young People: Evidence review J[ 2021]Review Interventions to support entry into further or higher education or training in looked-after children and young people: Looked-After Children and Young People: Evidence review J. 2021 Oct
- Review Interventions to promote physical, mental, and emotional health and wellbeing of looked-after children, young people and care leavers: Looked-After Children and Young People: Evidence review F[ 2021]Review Interventions to promote physical, mental, and emotional health and wellbeing of looked-after children, young people and care leavers: Looked-After Children and Young People: Evidence review F. 2021 Oct
- Review Interventions to support care placement stability for looked-after children and young people: Looked-After Children and Young People: Evidence review A[ 2021]Review Interventions to support care placement stability for looked-after children and young people: Looked-After Children and Young People: Evidence review A. 2021 Oct
- Interventions to support learning needs for school-aged looked-after children an...Interventions to support learning needs for school-aged looked-after children and young people
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...