Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Policies and Interventions that Improve Health, Psychosocial, and Economic Outcomes for Young People Leaving the Out-of-Home Care System.
| Autor: | Taylor D; Monash University, Caulfield East, VIC, Australia., Albers B; University of Zurich, Switzerland., Mann G; Centre for Evidence and Implementation, London, UK., Lewis J; Centre for Evidence and Implementation, London, UK., Taylor R; University of Auckland, New Zealand., Mendes P; Monash University, Caulfield East, VIC, Australia., Macdonald G; University of Bristol, UK., Shlonsky A; Monash University, Caulfield East, VIC, Australia. |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Zdroj: | Trauma, violence & abuse [Trauma Violence Abuse] 2024 Dec; Vol. 25 (5), pp. 3534-3554. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jun 03. |
| DOI: | 10.1177/15248380241253041 |
| Abstrakt: | Young people who transition to adulthood from out-of-home care (OOHC) are more likely to experience a range of poorer outcomes relative to their same-age peers in the community. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness of policies or interventions (hereafter "interventions") aimed at improving housing, health, education, economic, and psychosocial outcomes for youth leaving OOHC (hereafter "care leavers"). Eleven databases of published literature were reviewed along with gray literature. Eligible studies used randomized or quasi-experimental designs and assessed interventions that provided support to care leavers prior to, during, or after they left OOHC. Primary outcomes were housing and homelessness, health and well-being, education, economic and employment, criminal and delinquent behavior, and risky behavior, while secondary outcomes were supportive relationships and life skills. Where possible, results were pooled in a meta-analysis. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Fourteen studies published in 27 reports were identified that examined independent living programs (ILPs) ( n = 5), intensive support services ( n = 2), coaching and peer support (C&PSP) ( n = 2), transitional housing ( n = 1), health information or coaching ( n = 2), and extended care ( n = 2). All but one study was conducted in the United States. Twenty small meta-analyses were undertaken encompassing ILPs and C&PSP, with two showing results that favored the intervention with certainty. The level of confidence in each meta-analysis was considered very low. A significant risk of bias was identified in each of the included studies. While some interventions showed promise, particularly extended care, the scope and strength of included evidence is insufficient to recommend any included approach. Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: In their capacity as funders What Works for Children’s Social Care (WWCSC) reviewed and provided comment on a draft protocol and version of the review published as a technical report, for which they also facilitated an independent peer review process with anonymous reviewers. The views expressed in this report are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of WWCSC.David Taylor and Aron Shlonsky were authors of a study that was included in this review. Their conflict of interest was minimized by (a) ensuring that they were not part of decisions to include the study in the review, (b) they did not extract data for this study, and c) other team members undertook a ROB assessment. All other authors—Bianca Albers, Georgina Mann, Jane Lewis, Russell Taylor, Philip Mendes, and Geraldine Macdonald—declare that they have no conflicts of interest. |
| Databáze: | MEDLINE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|