Treatment Foster Care for Improving Outcomes in Children and Young People
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment foster care (‘TFC’) is a promising, individually tailored program for children and youth who are at risk of placement in restrictive settings. The results of this Campbell/Cochrane review suggests that TFC can lead to a reduction in antisocial and criminal behaviour, time spent in locked settings and absconsions. There is some evidence of a positive impact on school attendance and homework completion. Program developers conducted all five studies. The authors recommend that independent researchers also conduct research. Abstract Background Treatment foster care (TFC) is a foster family-based intervention that aims to provide young people (and, where appropriate, their families) with a tailored programme designed to effect positive changes in their lives. TFC was designed specifically to cater for the needs of children whose difficulties or circumstances place them at risk of multiple placements and/or more restrictive placements such as hospital or secure residential or youth justice settings. Objectives To assess the impact of TFC on psychosocial and behavioural outcomes, delinquency, placement stability, and discharge status for children and adolescents who require out-of-home placement. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL) 2006 (Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2007), CINAHL (1982 to December 2006), PsycINFO (1872 to January 2007), ASSIA (1987 to January 2007), LILACS (1982 to January 2007), ERIC (1966 to January 2007), Sociological Abstracts (1963 to January 2007), and the National Research Register 2006 (Issue 4). Selection criteria Included studies were randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of TFC with children and young people up to the age of 18 who, for reasons of severe medical, social, psychological and behavioural problems, were placed in out of home care in restrictive settings (e.g. secure residential care, psychiatric hospital) or at risk of placement in such settings. Data collection & analysis Titles and abstracts identified in the search were independently assessed for eligibility by the two authors (GM and WT) who also extracted and entered into REVMAN. Date were synthesised on the few occasions where this was possible. Results are presented in tabular, graphical (forest plots) and textual form. Main results Five studies including 390 participants were included in this review. Data suggest that treatment foster care may be a useful intervention for children and young people with complex emotional, psychological and behavioural need, who are at risk of placements in non-family settings that restrict their liberty and opportunities for social inclusion. Reviewers’ conclusions Although the inclusion criteria for this systematic review set a study design threshold higher than that of previous reviews, the results mirror those of earlier reviews but also highlight the tendency of the perceived effectiveness of popular interventions to outstrip their evidence base. Whilst the results of individual studies generally indicate that TFC is a promising intervention for children and youth experiencing mental health problems, behavioural problems or problems of delinquency, the evidence base is less robust than that usually reported.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".