Returning to the Family after Residential Care: Changes in Young People’s Well-Being and their Assessment of the Transition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is lack of research on the self-reported subjective well-being of young people returning to their families after residential care. This study examined the self-reported subjective well-being of young people before and after returning to their families ( n = 79) and compared it with that of young people who remained in the same residential care facility ( n = 255). In addition, the study examined returners’ assessments of their transition to identify transition factors that are associated with an easier return. Data for this study were collected through a panel study that examines the personal lives of young people aged 12 to 17 in residential care in Switzerland. Using data from the 2022 and 2023 survey waves, the study found that returning to the family was the most common form of leaving residential care in this sample, at 49.9%. In addition, a significant increase in returners’ subjective well-being was found upon their return, but it was not significantly different from that of the young people who remained in the same residential care facility. More than 60% of the returners reported that they were coping quite well. However, almost a quarter of the returners reported that they had a rather difficult time after their return. Willingness to leave residential care and good professional support during the initial period after leaving care were found to be significant predictors of a less difficult time upon returning to the family. Yet, only 48.7% of returners reported receiving good professional support after leaving residential care.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 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".