Infants, children, and youth in foster care with prenatal substance exposure: a synthesis of two scoping reviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Infants, children, and youth in foster care have frequently experienced prenatal substance exposure (PSE), neglect, and maltreatment as well as disruptions in their relationships with families. They also have great capacity for overcoming early adversities. In this synthesis of two previously conducted scoping reviews, we aimed to identify and describe literature that identifies a range of interventions that support the health and development of this population.Methods: This review integrates and extends two previously conducted scoping reviews, one focusing on infants and one focusing on children and youth, to synthesize themes across these developmental stages. The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology was employed for the current and previous reviews. A three-step search strategy identified published studies in the English language from January 2006 to February 2020.Results: One-hundred and fifty-three sources were included in this review. Four themes were identified: (1) early screening, diagnosis, and intervention; (2) providing theoretically grounded care; (3) supporting parents and foster care providers; and (4) intersectoral collaboration.Conclusion:Infants, children, and youth with PSE are overrepresented in foster care. Child welfare system planning should take a multi-sectoral approach to addressing the cumulative needs of this population and their care providers over developmental ages and stages. Although research remains limited, early screening, diagnosis, and developmentally and FASD-informed intersectoral interventions are critical for optimizing outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".