Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37614764›Full record

ArticleCampbell systematic reviews2023

PROTOCOL: School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: An updated systematic review.

Sara Valdebenito, Hannah Gaffney, Darrick Jolliffe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Campbell systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sara ValdebenitoInstitute of Criminology University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.
Hannah GaffneyClare Hall College University of Cambridge Cambridge UK.
Darrick JolliffeDepartment of Law and Criminology Royal Holloway University of London London UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The primary goal of the present mixed methods review is to systematically examine the available evidence for the effectiveness of different types of school-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion. Quantitative evidence will help to understand the overall size of the impact, as well as the factors that better explain it. Qualitative evidence will help to better understand how these programmes may work, and what factors aid or hinder implementation and success. The research questions underlying the quantitative review are as follows: Do school-based programmes reduce the use of exclusionary sanctions in schools?Are some school-based approaches more effective than others in reducing exclusionary sanctions?Do participants' characteristics (e.g., age, sex, or ethnicity) affect the impact of school-based programmes on exclusionary sanctions in schools?Do characteristics of the interventions, implementation, and methodology affect the impact of school-based programmes on exclusionary sanctions in schools?Do school-based programmes have an impact on reducing the involvement of children and young people in crime and violence?Do participants' characteristics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) affect the impact of school-based programmes on crime and violence? If sufficient data are available, we will compare different approaches (e.g., school-wide management, classroom management, restorative justice, cognitive-behavioural interventions) and identify those that could potentially demonstrate larger effects. We will also (potentially) run analysis controlling for characteristics of

Identifiers

PMID37614764
PMCPMC10442604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.