Search

Background: The consequences for children born with birth defects and developmental disabilities encompassed by foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) are profound, affecting all areas of social, behavioural and cognitive functioning. Given the strong evidence for a core deficit in executive functioning, underpinned by impaired self-regulation skills, there has been a growing focus on the development of interventions that enhance or support the development of executive functions (EFs). Objectives: The primary objective of this review is to synthesise the evidence for structured psychological interventions that explicitly aim to improve EF in children. The review also sought to ascertain if the effectiveness of interventions were influenced by characteristics of the intervention, participants or type of EF targeted by the intervention. Search Methods: Sixteen databases, 18 grey literature search locations and 9 trial registries were systematically searched to locate eligible studies (up to December 2020). These searches were supplemented with reference harvesting, forward citation searching, hand searches of topic-relevant journals and contact with experts. Selection Criteria: Studies were included in the review if they reported on an impact evaluation of a psychological intervention aiming to improve EF in children 3-16 years who either had confirmed prenatal alcohol exposure or a formal diagnosis falling under the umbrella term of FASDs. Eligible study designs included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental designs with either no treatment, wait list control or an alternative treatment as a comparison condition. Single-group pre-post designs were also included. Data Collection and Analysis: Standard methodological procedures expected by the Campbell Collaboration were used at all stages of this review. Standardised mean differences (SMDs) were used to estimate intervention effects, which were combined with random effects meta-analysis (data permitting). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (RoB2) and Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies-Interventions tool (ROBINS-I). Main Results: The systematic search identified 3820 unique records. After title/abstract and full-text screening, 11 eligible studies (reported in 21 eligible documents) were deemed eligible, with a combined 253 participants. Of the 11 studies, 6 were RCTs, 1 was a quasi-experiment and 4 were single-group pre-post intervention designs. All studies were rated as having an overall high or serious risk of bias, with some variation across domains for RCTs. For RCT and quasi-experimental studies, the overall effect of EF interventions on direct and indirect measures of EF generally favoured the experimental condition, but was not statistically significant. There was no difference between intervention and comparison groups on direct measures of auditory attention (k = 3; SMD = 0.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.06, 1.18), visual attention (k = 2; SMD = 0.90, 95% CI = -1.41, 3.21), cognitive flexibility (k = 2; SMD = 0.23, 95% CI = -0.40, 0.86), attentional inhibition (k = 2; SMD = 0.04, 95% CI = -0.58, 0.65), response inhibition (k = 3; SMD = 0.47, 95% CI = -0.04, 0.99), or verbal working memory (k = 1; d = 0.6827; 95% CI = -0.0196, 1.385). Significant heterogeneity was found across studies on measures of auditory attention and visual attention, but not for measures of cognitive flexibility, attentional inhibition or response inhibition. Available data prohibited further exploration of heterogeneity. There was no statistical difference between intervention and comparison groups on indirect measures of global executive functioning (k = 2; SMD = 0.21, 95% CI = -0.40, 0.82), behavioural regulation (k = 2; SMD = 0.18, 95% CI = -0.43, 0.79), or emotional control (k = 3; SMD = 0.01, 95% CI = -0.33, 0.36). Effect sizes were positive and not significant for meta-cognition (k = 1; SMD = 0.23, 95% CI = -0.72, 1.19), shifting (k = 2; SMD = 0.04, 95% CI = -0.35, 0.43), initiation (k = 1; SMD = 0.04, 95% CI = -0.40, 0.49), monitoring (k = 1; SMD = 0.25, 95% CI = -0.20, 0.70) and organisation of materials (k = 1; SMD = 0.25, 95% CI = -0.19, 0.70). Effect sizes were negative and not statistically different for effortful control (k = 1; SMD = -0.53, 95% CI = -1.50, 0.45), inhibition (k = 2; SMD = -0.08, 95% CI = -0.47, 0.31), working memory (k = 1; SMD = 0.00, 95% CI = -0.45, 0.44), and planning and organisation (k = 1; SMD = -0.10, 95% CI = -0.55, 0.34). No statistically significant heterogeneity was found for any of the syntheses of indirect measures of EF. Based on pre-post single-group designs, there was evidence for small to medium sized improvements in EF based on direct measures (cognitive flexibility, verbal working memory and visual working memory) and indirect measures (behavioural regulation, shifting, inhibition and meta-cognition). However, these results must be interpreted with caution due to high risk of bias. Authors' Conclusions: This review found limited and uncertain evidence for the effectiveness of interventions for improving executive functioning in children with FASD across 8 direct and 13 indirect measures of EF. The findings are limited by the small number of high-quality studies that could be synthesised by meta-analysis and the very small sample sizes for the included studies.

The primary objective of the proposed systematic review is to answer the following research question: do parenting programmes for parents of adolescents impact adolescent mental health outcomes, positive development and the parent-adolescent relationship? This will be achieved by systematically searching for and synthesising the extant evaluation evidence that meets the inclusion criteria for this review. The secondary objective is to answer the research question: does the impact of parenting programmes for parents of adolescents on adolescent mental health outcomes, positive development, and the parent-adolescent relationship vary by: (1) diagnosis; (2) sociodemographic risk status (e.g., family structure, household income); (3) type of caregiver (e.g., biological parent, foster carer, kinship caregiver); (4) geographical location of the study; (5) intervention setting and modality; (6) type of outcome measurement modality (e.g., observation, self-report); (7) type of intervention model (prevention, early intervention, treatment, theoretical framework); (8) participant age (parent and/or adolescent); and/or (9) participant gender (parent and/or adolescent)? This systematic review has direct relevance to policy within the authors' country of residence (Australia) and internationally. Child and adolescent health and/or mental health policies around the world emphasise the importance of the adolescent period as a critical transition point in the prevention and treatment of mental health problems and the promotion of health and wellbeing, along with the importance of evidence-based interventions and the influential role. This review will provide evidence-based information for the action of "enhancing and promoting resources and mechanisms to support parenting in the middle years and adolescence," which was identified as a neglected and less-resourced area but still an influential period of transition where protective parenting has a strong impact on outcomes; and, for "tackling mental health and risky behaviours, such as building social and emotional coping skills in the middle years and during the transitions into adolescence and early adulthood" within the recently released Australian Government's National Action Plan for the Health of Children and Young People (2020-2030). The findings from this review will support action within identified priority areas for governments across the world.

Background: Parental substance misuse is a pervasive risk factor for a range of detrimental outcomes for children across the life course. While a variety of interventions have been developed for this population, the existing evidence‐base requires consolidation and consideration of the comparative effectiveness of different interventions to facilitate evidence‐informed decisions between different intervention approaches. Objectives: This review aimed to use network meta‐analysis to synthesise the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. Network meta‐analysis was not possible; however, we synthesised the effects of a broad range of interventions on child psychosocial outcomes. Another aim was to examine potential moderators of the effects, yet this was also not possible due to data limitations. A secondary objective was to qualitatively synthesise economic, treatment completion, and treatment acceptability information for included studies. Search Methods: Searches were performed in November 2020 and again in April 2021. Encompassing multiple disciplines, we searched 34 databases, 58 grey literature repositories, and 10 trial registers. Supplementary hand searches were conducted on 11 journals, along with harvesting the references of all included studies and existing reviews, and forward citation searching each report of all included studies. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing data. Selection Criteria: Eligible studies included randomised and quasi‐experimental evaluations of psychosocial, pharmacological, and/or legal interventions using either a placebo, no treatment, waitlist control, treatment‐as‐usual, or alternative treatment as a comparison condition. Study participants needed to be comprised of families with children under the age of 18 with one or more currently substance‐misusing parents (or caregivers). Studies were required to evaluate the eligible intervention using a child‐focused psychosocial outcome. If reported in eligible studies, the following secondary outcomes were also synthesised in the review: cost‐effectiveness, treatment completion, length of time in treatment and acceptability of treatment (e.g. participant perspectives of the intervention). There were no restrictions placed on publication status or geographic location, however only research written in English was included. Data Collection and Analysis: Standard methodological procedures were followed across all stages of the review, as guided by the published protocol for the review (Eggins et al. 2020). Due to the inability to conduct network meta‐analyses, random effects pairwise meta‐analyses with inverse variance were used to synthesise effects when two or more studies with conceptually similar interventions and outcomes were available. Results of the meta‐analyses are displayed in forest plots, and separate analyses are provided for conceptually distinct outcomes and time‐points of measurement. Sensitivity analyses are used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity in the absence of sufficient studies to conduct subgroup analyses. Main Results: 99 studies (reported in 231 documents) met review inclusion criteria, encompassing 22,213 participants. Most studies were conducted in the United States (k = 76), almost half were randomised controlled trials (k = 46), and the most common comparator was treatment‐as‐usual (k = 50). Interventions were evaluated using a large range of child psychosocial outcomes which broadly fell under: (a) child welfare; (b) child development; (c) child emotional and behavioural; and (d) educational domains. Intervention models were rarely only legal or pharmacological in nature, with most studies evaluating integrated psychosocial treatments with either pharmacology, coordinated health care, case‐management, and/or judicial or child welfare oversight and coordination. Thirty‐six meta‐analyses and 227 single effect sizes were used to appraise the effectiveness of included interventions, based on 68 studies with sufficient data for effect size calculation. The size and direction of the effects varied across interventions, type of outcomes, and time‐point of measurement. Twenty‐seven meta‐analyses and 186 single effect sizes suggested null effects. Only five single effect size estimates based on three studies indicated negative effects including: higher depressive and somatisation symptoms (parent‐report), hopelessness (child‐report), educational achievement difficulties (parent‐report), and substantiated child protection reports for those engaged with interventions versus treatment‐as‐usual or no treatment. Nine meta‐analyses and 36 single study effect estimates suggest that psychosocial, pharmacological and/or legal interventions have a positive effect on a range of specific child welfare, developmental, and emotional/behavioural outcomes for children. The risk of bias varied across domains and studies, which further lowers confidence in the results. Based on a subset of included studies, treatment completion tends to vary, yet cost‐benefits can be achieved when intervening with children whose parents misuse substances. Authors' Conclusions: Despite a large body of evaluation evidence, disparate outcomes, and missing data precluded analyses to formally examine the comparative effectiveness of psychosocial, legal, and pharmacological interventions for improving outcomes for children with substance misusing parents. The large amount of unreported (missing) data meant that many effect estimates were underpowered due to single studies and small sample sizes. The review findings suggest that interventions for families affected by parental substance misuse can be effective when they holistically address multiple domains such as parent wellbeing/mental health, parenting, children's wellbeing, and/or other factors impacting family wellbeing (e.g. housing). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The proposed systematic review is an update to, and extension of, Lipsey et al. (2007). As such we build on their previous aims to: (i) Assess and synthesise the overall impact of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) on offender recidivism; (ii) Examine possible sources of variability in the effectiveness of CBT. Data permitting, we will examine if the effectiveness of CBT varies by: (a) Characteristics of the CBT intervention (e.g., cognitive restructuring vs. cognitive skills training, group v. individual implementation; and/or custodial v. community setting, and/or), (b) Characteristics of the population (e.g., juveniles vs. adult offenders), (c) Implementation factors (e.g., implementing practitioner, use of structured/manualised approaches, delivery mode, and/or programme duration or intensity), (d) Evaluation methods (e.g., randomised vs. non‐randomised research designs); (iv) Determine whether there is a decline in the effect of CBT on recidivism over time; and (v) Investigate whether there is an interaction between implementation factors and time in terms of the effect on recidivism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) is associated with profound and lifelong disability. The umbrella term fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) describes a spectrum of impairments resulting from the deleterious effects of PAE (Chudley et al., 2005). While the core aspects of the condition remain unchanged, the Australian guidelines comprise two diagnostic categories for FASD: (1) FASD with three sentinel facial features; or (2) FASD with less than three sentinel facial features. Understanding how to support children with a diagnosis of FASD is particularly important given the condition has been linked to a range of poor outcomes, including increased contact with the justice system, substance misuse (Burd, Fast, Conry, & Williams, 2010), antisocial and delinquent behaviour, learning disabilities, externalizing, and aggressive behaviour, as well as a range of other adaptive functioning and mental health problems (Bower & Elliot, 2016; Kodituwakku, 2009; Rasmussen, Andrew, Zwaigenbaum, & Tough, 2008). There is growing evidence that a core deficit underpinning many of these adverse outcomes is impairment in executive functions (EFs; Khoury, Milligan, & Girard, 2015; Kodituwakku, 2009). EFs are higher-order mental processes which allow individuals to deploy attention strategically, hold and manipulate goal-relevant information and consciously enforce goal-directed behaviour (Baggetta & Alexander, 2016; Diamond, 2013). Given the compromised outcomes associated with EF deficits, and the frequency of EF impairment in children with FASD, this rigorous synthesis of the effectiveness of available interventions offers great value to practitioners, individuals with FASD and their families.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The primary aim of this mixed methods review is to synthesise the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice interventions (RJIs) for reducing offending and reoffending outcomes in children and young people. We are also particularly interested in the impact of RJIs on children and young peoples' violent offending and violent reoffending. A second aim of the review is to examine whether the magnitude of effectiveness of RJIs may be influenced by study characteristics such as the population (e.g., age, ethnicity, or sex), the form of intervention (e.g., face‐to‐face mediation compared to family group conferencing), the place of delivery of the intervention (e.g., in independent office, in court), implementation (e.g., trained facilitators, dose, fidelity) and methodology (e.g., randomised controlled trial). The third aim of the review is to synthesise the qualitative evidence about RJ to develop a better contextual understanding of how these programmes may work and to elucidate factors that might increase the efficacy and implementation of RJ interventions. The specific research questions this systematic review aims to address are: (1) Do RJ interventions reduce children and young people's involvement in offending or reoffending relative to a comparison group? [RQ1]. (2) Is there variation in the impact of different RJ approaches on young people's involvement in offending or reoffending? [RQ2]. (3) Is there variation in the impact of RJIs on children and young people's offending or reoffending depending on the characteristics of the participants taking part in the RJI (e.g., sex, age, ethnicity)? [RQ3]. (4) What characteristics of RJIs, influence the effectiveness of RJIs for children and young people's offending and reoffending? [RQ4]. (5) What are the most notable barriers and facilitators, as reported by participants (e.g., the victims, children/young people, or mediators who have taken part in an evaluation of an RJI, or those children or young people who were meant to take part in an evaluation but ultimately did not), to the implementation of RJIs to reduce later offending or reoffending? [RQ5]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]