Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37313292›Full record

ArticleInternational review of education. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft. Revue internationale de pedagogie2023

Interventions to improve refugee children's access to education and quality learning: A scoping review of existing impact evaluations.

Júlia Palik, Gudrun Østby

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in International review of education. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Erziehungswissenschaft. Revue internationale de pedagogie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Júlia PalikPeace Research Institute Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-5099-7759
Gudrun ØstbyPeace Research Institute Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5521-5610

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Refugee children face numerous challenges in accessing quality education. In the past years, the number of interventions aiming to address these challenges has grown substantially. What is still scarce, however, is systematic evidence on what works to improve refugee children's enrolment and learning. The authors of this article set out to find what robust quantitative evidence exists regarding interventions that seek to improve access to education and quality learning for refugee children. They conducted a first scoping review of quantitative peer-reviewed articles which evaluate the effect of specific interventions which aimed to improve access to education and/or quality learning for refugee children. While their literature search for the time-period 1990-2021 resulted in 1,873 articles, only eight of these fit the authors' selection criteria. This low number indicates that there is a general lack of robust evidence as to what works to improve quality learning for refugee children. What the authors' mapping of the research evidence does suggest is that cash transfer programmes can increase school attendance and that learning outcomes, such as second-language acquisition, can be improved through physical education, early childhood development programmes, or online game-based solutions. Other interventions, such as drama workshops, appear to have had zero effect on second-language acquisition. The authors conclude their article by addressing the limitations and implications of this body of interventions for future research.

Indexed as

Access to educationFourth sustainable development goal (SDG 4)Learning quality, quality educationRefugee educationScoping review

Identifiers

PMID37313292
PMCPMC10225761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.