ArticleChildren and youth services review2021
Revisiting Conventional Wisdom: What Do We Know from 30 Years of Research on Sibling Placement in Foster Care?
Article in Children and youth services review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mapping the evidence on outcomes of childhood out-of-home care: A scoping review of reviews.PloS one · 2026Article
- Sibling Separation and Placement Instability for Children in Foster Care.Child maltreatment · 2022Article
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
Background: Efforts to place sibling groups together in foster care have long been considered best practice and is required under federal law. Practice and policy guidance are based in part on the belief that sibling placement is in the best interests of children. In this article, we first review literature reviews on this topic to assess the extent to which prior efforts to characterize this body of research are thorough, objective, and based on research specific to the foster care population. We then assess the quality and volume of empirical evidence on the effects of sibling placement for the stability, permanency, and wellbeing of children in foster care to ascertain whether existing reviews accurately reflect the empirical evidence or extend beyond it without adequate empirical support. Methods: We conducted a scoping search of reviews of published research from the year 1990 to 2019 using Google Scholar, PsycInfo, EBSCO, and PubMed (Medline). From the search results, we extracted all review articles, quantitative studies, and qualitative studies on sibling placement in foster care. We identified 16 literature reviews on sibling placement in foster care. In addition, we identified 27 longitudinal quantitative studies measuring the association between sibling placement and child placement stability, permanency or wellbeing in foster care, and nine qualitative studies on the role of sibling placement or relationships for child wellbeing in foster care. Results: Many of the literature reviews relied on research evidence from non-foster care samples and studies with weak methodologies. Moreover, although the research evidence is inconclusive - with studies reporting positive, negative, and null effects -most literature reviews concluded that the practice of sibling placement was supported by research evidence. Conclusion: Although there are moral reasons to support sibling placement, the research evidence does not consistently support the practice of placing siblings together. Further research is needed to identify when sibling placement poses a risk to children and when sibling placement is likely to facilitate positive outcomes.
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.