Striving for Happily Ever After: Supportive Interventions for Youth Leaving Residential Placement. A Systematic Review of Reviews

Ref ID 881
First Author L.S. Kvamme
Journal CHILD & ADOLESCENT MENTAL HEALTH
Year Of Publishing 2022
URL https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/camh.12507
Keywords • Social care
• Pre-specification
• Disclosure
• Risk of bias
• Single reviewer
• Low methodological quality
• Low reporting quality
• Protocols
Problem(s) • Single reviewer / lack of double checking
• Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
• Conflicts of interest or funding of included studies not assessed
• Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
• Risk of bias not incorporated into conclusions of review
• No registered or published protocol
• Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Article Type Empirical
Article Subtype Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review
First Author Country Norway
Checklists • AMSTAR 2
Aim This study aimed to: (a) conduct an overview of Systematic Reviews regarding interventions for youth transitioning from Residential Placement; (b) identify and describe outcomes that have been reported in Systematic Reviews on interventions for youth transitioning from Residential Placement; (c) identify and discuss gaps of knowledge in the Systematic Review literature.
Level of Investigation Descriptive
Summary of Findings From 8 systematic reviews of interventions for youth transitioning from Residential Placement indexed across nine bibliographic databases up to Feb 13 2019. Five of the eight systematic reviews were rated ‘critically low’ methodological quality (AMSTAR 2) and two systematic reviews were rated ‘low quality’. Common methodological quality deviations included: no clear statement that review methods were established before the authors conducted their literature search, study selection was not performed in duplicate, data extraction was not performed in duplicate, lists of excluded studies were not provided, and risk of bias was not completed.
Number of systematic reviews included 8
Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed 2349
Treatment impacted No
Treatment impacted description
Interpretation impacted Not Applicable
Interpretation impacted description