ArticlePloS one2024
Family group conferencing for children and families: Evaluation of implementation, context and effectiveness (Family VOICE). Study protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Preventing children's care entry: an umbrella review of the risks, protective factors, and interventions.Children and youth services review · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFamily group conferences (FGCs) in child welfare bring immediate and wider family members together to decide on the best way to meet a child's needs. Unlike professionally led meetings, the aim is for decisions to be made by or with family members. Qualitative and mixed-method research with FGC participants tends to show positive experiences: most participants feel their voices are heard; FGCs facilitate family-driven solutions and closer relationships-within families and with social workers. Although there is existing literature on FGCs, there is a paucity of robust comparative UK evaluations, i.e., randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies. Comparative studies internationally have focused on a narrow range of outcomes, not recognised the importance of context, and paid little attention to the quality of delivery. Some qualitative studies have considered process and context but there is scant measurement of these. The aims of this study are, firstly, to establish how FGCs improve outcomes for families and what factors vary their quality, and, secondly, to assess longer-term outcomes in terms of service use and associated costs.
methodsGiven the importance of process and context, evaluation informed by realist and complex systems approaches is needed. This multi-method evaluation includes a survey of FGC services in all UK local authorities (n = 212) to map service provision; co-design of programme theory and evaluation measures with family members who have experienced an FGC (n = 16-24) and practitioners (n = 16-24) in two sites; a prospective single-arm study of FGC variability and outcomes after six months; and comparison of service use and costs in FGC participants (n≥300 families) and a control group (n≥1000) after two years using a quasi-experiment. DISCUSSION: This is a pragmatic evaluation of an existing intervention, to identify what mechanisms and contexts influence effective process and longer-term outcomes. The study is registered with Research Registry (ref. 7432).
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.