Foster children’s perspectives on participation in child welfare processes: A meta-synthesis of qualitative studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this meta-synthesis was to systematically synthesise qualitative research that explores foster children's perspectives on participation in child welfare processes. Searches were conducted in Medline (OVID), Embase, PsycINFO, and Social Science Citation Index. Children in non-kinship foster care in any setting (high-income, middle-income, low-income countries) who self-reported their experiences of care (removal from home, foster family processes, placement breakdown) were eligible for inclusion. Selected studies took place in 11 high-income countries. A total of 8436 citations were identified and 25 articles were included in this meta-synthesis. Studies summarized the views of 376 children. Children had been in foster care between two weeks and 17 years. Findings synthesize 'facets' of children's participation (e.g., being asked vs making decisions), as well as children's perceived barriers and facilitators to participation. A main priority for children was the quality of their relationships, especially in terms of values (e.g., fairness, honesty, inclusivity). No one way of participating in child welfare processes is better than another, as some children more clearly expressed a desire for passive listening roles and others indicated a desire for active roles in decision-making. However, meaningful adults in foster children's lives have a responsibility to act in a way that strengthens the emphasis on children's needs and voices.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".