SynthesisSystematic reviews2019
Educational outcomes of children in contact with social care in England: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Guideline
- The intergenerational health, social care, and justice system contacts associated with household substance misuse in Wales.International journal of population data science · 2026Article
- What factors are associated with children being taken into care by the state after initial contact with services? A survival analysis of Children's Social Care data in Liverpool.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Receipt of social services intervention in childhood, educational attainment and emergency hospital admissions: longitudinal analyses of national administrative health, social care, and education data in Wales, UK.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Childhood contact with social services and risk of suicide or sudden death in young adulthood: identifying hidden risk in a population-wide cohort study.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2023Article
- Data Resource Profile: The Social Services Client Administration and Retrieval Environment (SOSCARE) administrative dataset for children's social care in Northern Ireland.International journal of population data science · 2023Article
- Evaluation of pushing out of children from all English state schools: Administrative data cohort study of children receiving social care and their peers.Child abuse & neglect · 2022Article
- Are Brain and Cognitive Reserve Shaped by Early Life Circumstances?Frontiers in neuroscience · 2022Review
- Educational and health outcomes of schoolchildren in local authority care in Scotland: A retrospective record linkage study.PLoS medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn England, the state intervenes in the lives of children through Children's Social Care (CSC) services with the aim of supporting and maintaining their welfare. It is known from government cross-sectional data that children who experience these CSC interventions (such as state care) have consistently poorer educational outcomes than the general population. However, these data are limited in providing crude estimates of association and in ignoring longitudinal histories. This systematic review aimed to appraise the extant research evidence from longitudinal studies and answer the question: how do educational outcomes differ between children in contact with CSC and the general population in the UK?
methodsAccording to a pre-defined protocol, we searched 16 health, social care, education and legal databases for population-level quantitative studies conducted on UK children with exposure to CSC, a general population comparison group and an educational outcome. We also conducted snowball searches and searches of Google Scholar and grey literature. Data on whether each study met inclusion criteria were extracted, and findings of included studies were synthesised narratively. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.
resultsIn total, 5482 sources were screened which resulted in seven studies being included in the narrative synthesis. Only three were published in peer-reviewed journals. All but one used administrative education data and five used administrative data from CSC services. In all studies, exposure to CSC interventions was measured crudely, ignoring heterogeneity in the experiences of children. All agreed that children in contact with CSC services perform worse than their peers on all outcomes (variously: exam results, absences, exclusions, school moves, being missing from school, higher education aspirations and quality of school).
conclusionsDespite employing a search across 16 databases supplemented with additional searches of other online sources, we found only seven studies that met our inclusion criteria. This review throws into sharp relief the urgent need to conduct more population-level research into the educational prospects of children in contact with CSC services. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018089755.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.