ArticleJCPP advances2025
Interventions for siblings of children and young people with mental health conditions: A systematic review.
Article in JCPP advances, 2025. 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.
- "It's like a car that doesn't like gasoline" - a qualitative study of siblings' understanding of anorexia nervosa in childhood: perspectives from siblings and parents.Journal of eating disorders · 2025Article
- Interventions for siblings of children and young people with mental health conditions: A systematic review.JCPP advances · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Childhood mental health conditions typically affect the entire family, including siblings, however there is a lack of research investigating interventions supporting siblings. Methods: The review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022377163). We conducted systematic searches of 7 databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Child and Developmental and Adolescent Studies, Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts, Education Research Information Centre, and British Eduction Index) for studies evaluating interventions for children and young people (CYP) with siblings presenting with mental health conditions from January 1980 to August 2024. We included interventions for young people aged 4 to 24 years who have a sibling with a mental health condition, with symptoms and impact lasting at least 3 months. Quality of reporting was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist for qualitative and the Effective Public Health Project Practice quality assessment Tool for quantitative studies. Results: We identified 4 eligible studies; 2 of family-based treatment and the other of drop-in group support from 2469 studies that were screened in total. Quantitative results were rated weak for three out of four studies, while qualitative results were rated moderate for two studies, and high for one study. The two studies of sibling support groups reported high acceptability. Conclusion: The evidence for the effectiveness of interventions for siblings of CYP with mental health conditions is limited in both size and quality, highlighting a significant gap in research and practice. We cannot draw definitive conclusions from the available evidence, but it suggests support groups have potential to improve sibling outcomes. Additional research is required to determine sibling mental health trajectories and to identify risk and resilience factors possibly influencing poorer mental health outcomes. Clinicians should be mindful of potential effects of mental health conditions on other family members and encourage parents to communicate openly with siblings about family dynamics and the challenges they may face.
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.