https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0190-8008
Figures
Abstract
Background
Children placed in out-of-home care in high-income countries face complex challenges due to exposure to adverse childhood experiences and systemic disadvantages. While research on their outcomes has grown, the evidence base remains fragmented. An overview of review-level evidence was conducted to identify patterns, gaps, and priorities for future research and practice.
Methods
A scoping review of reviews was conducted. Peer-reviewed review articles published between January 2013 and July 2024 were identified through searches in databases including EBSCOhost, ProQuest, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Epistemonikos. Eligible reviews focused on childhood out-of-home care experience and reported outcomes for care-experienced individuals (assessed either in childhood or adulthood) and/or associated factors. Outcomes were categorised under the following domains: Health and Emotional Wellbeing (HEW), Physical and Legal Security (PLS), Education and Learning (EL), Living Standards and Social Wellness (LSSW), and Identity and Civic Participation (ICP). Factors were classified across multiple levels, including individual child-level, socio-relational-level, community-level, system-level, and other factors.
Results
A total of 77 reviews were included, spanning diverse methodologies and contexts. Research was concentrated in domains such as HEW and LSSW, with indicators such as mental and emotional health and attachment and behaviour functioning receiving substantial attention. Conversely, key gaps were identified, including the limited reporting of ICP outcomes (e.g., identity and self-respect). System-level factors, such as care quality and placement type, were most frequently reported across outcome domains and indicators. Individual child level and socio-relational-level factors were consistently highlighted, while community-level factors were largely underrepresented.
Conclusion
Future research should target gaps in underexplored outcome domains like ICP and indicators such as bullying, mortality, and educational readiness. Community-level factors warrant more attention as they play a significant role in supporting transitions to independence and social integration.
Citation: Opoku R, Judd N, Cresswell K, Parker M, James M, Scourfield J, et al. (2026) Mapping the evidence on outcomes of childhood out-of-home care: A scoping review of reviews. PLoS One 21(2): e0325409. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325409
Editor: Mary Diane Clark, Lamar University, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Received: May 17, 2025; Accepted: January 23, 2026; Published: February 25, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Opoku et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This study is funded by the NIHR Health and Social Care Delivery Research Programme (NIHR156826 - CARELINK Wales - Comprehensive Analysis of Risk factors and outcomes for vulnerable children through LINKed Welsh Data), UK. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Additional support was provided by the Economic and Social Research Council–Administrative Data Research UK (ESRC-ADR UK) through a PhD studentship. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Background
In most high-income countries, current laws and policies emphasise placing children who cannot remain with their parents into out-of-home care (OHC), with a preference for placements with extended family members or close family friends (kinship care) [1–3]. We define out-of-home care (OHC) as any short- or long-term alternative living arrangement for children who can no longer live with their parents due to safety or welfare concerns. Some argue that kinship care arrangements are associated with better developmental outcomes compared to placements in unrelated foster care or institutional settings [4,5]. However, children in any form of OHC remain a particularly vulnerable group, with complex needs and facing numerous challenges. These challenges often stem from adverse childhood experiences (e.g., abuse and neglect) and systemic disadvantages encountered prior to, during, and sometimes after their time in care [4,6–10].
Over the past decades, increasing attention has been given to the experiences and outcomes of children in OHC, reflected in a growing body of research, including several literature reviews [e.g., 11–16]. These reviews synthesise evidence across diverse contexts, but the research landscape remains fragmented, with studies varying in focus and methodological approach. With this in mind, a comprehensive map of studied outcomes and their associated factors would provide a clearer understanding of the breadth of available evidence, help identify gaps, and highlight priority areas for future research and intervention. Accordingly, the research question guiding this study was: what outcomes of out-of-home care (OHC) have been examined in existing reviews, and what factors have been studied in relation to these outcomes?.
Materials and methods
Review design
A scoping review of reviews was determined to be the most suitable approach for capturing the breadth of this extensive research area, systematically mapping the existing evidence, and identifying gaps in the literature. The protocol for the review is available at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/G7D5J. We followed the six stages recommended by Arksey and O’Malley [17] and used the principles of Framework synthesis [18] for extracting relevant data. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews [19].
Search strategy
A search of academic databases was conducted to identify peer-reviewed review articles. The databases included EBSCOhost (searching MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo, Education Research Complete, and CINAHL Ultimate), ProQuest (covering ASSIA, Criminal Justice Database, Education Database, and Social Science Database), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Epistemonikos. The initial search strategy was developed by R.O. and underwent iterative refinement following inputs from J.N., K.H., S.B., and Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) participants. The full search strategy and the procedures to select studies are described in a related review of reviews [20].
Eligibility criteria
A review was included if it met the following criteria:
- Reported any outcome(s) for individuals placed in OHC during childhood (i.e., under 18 years of age), assessed either in childhood or adulthood, and/or associated factors.
- Included quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods studies with a documented search strategy.
- Published from January 2013 to July 2024, available in full-text and written in English.
- Focused on global or high-income country contexts. The decision to focus on high-income countries was based on the following considerations:
- These countries are more likely to have established and formalised systems of fostering, kinship, and residential care, offering a clearer basis for cross-study comparisons.
- The review aimed to inform policy and research priorities within high-income contexts.
A review was excluded if it:
- Focused exclusively on children with learning disabilities, those in inpatient psychiatric care, young offender institutions, adoption, or specialist centres for mothers and children. These contexts often involve distinct care pathways, interventions, and outcome profiles that differ meaningfully from the broader looked-after population, and were thus beyond the scope of this review.
- Was non-empirical or exclusively focused on literature from low- and middle-income countries or postgraduate theses, books, or grey literature.
Charting the data
Data extraction was carried out independently by three reviewers (R.O., K.C., and N.J.), while two supervising reviewers (M.J. and S.B.) verified the extracted data to minimise errors. The following information was collected from each included review: author, year of publication, title, type of review, number and type of included studies, countries covered by the included studies, review time frame, population, analytical approach, aims/objectives, findings on factors associated with care entry, review authors’ interpretations, and quality assessments of the included studies. It is common practice in studies mapping evidence on broad topics to limit data extraction to the abstract section [21–25]. However, data extraction for this review was extended to include the full text to minimise the risk of underestimating the number of reviews reporting relevant outcomes and factors [26].
Collating, summarising, and reporting results
The large volume of records, combined with the broad scope of the topic and diverse outcome measures, makes synthesising and reporting specific findings impractical [25,26]. However, a descriptive analysis of study characteristics and outcome categories enabled a comprehensive mapping the literature. One reviewer (R.O.) categorised the outcomes of children in care using the domains and indicators of the Equality Measurement Framework (EMF), developed by the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission [27]. Adaptations were made to account for the EMF not being specifically designed for children in OHC. Some domains were merged, while additional indicators emerged from the data, resulting in the five outcome domains described in Table 1. Details on the development of outcome categories are available in S1 Table. Additionally, factors were categorised using the modified ecological model [7] as: individual child level (child characteristics), socio-relational level (family, peers, and carer relationships), community level (schools, neighbourhoods, and local environments), system level (services, policies, and organisational practices), and other factors (influences not captured by the preceding levels, such as study characteristics in meta-analyses). The term “factor(s)” is used broadly to encompass what influences outcomes – both risk and protective factors. The inclusion of factors was not limited to variables with statistically significant associations with the outcomes but also included themes identified in reviews that synthesised qualitative data.
We treated outcomes and factors as non-mutually exclusive analytical categories. Thus, whenever a review covered multiple outcomes or factors, it was assigned to all of them rather than just one. Each review was examined in full, and outcomes/factors were assigned whenever a review contained explicit material relevant to that category (e.g., reported outcomes, statistical associations, or qualitative themes). A single review could therefore contribute to multiple outcomes or factors, resulting in counts that legitimately exceed the number of included reviews. Coding occurred in two stages. First, R.O. mapped all reported outcomes and factors to the adapted EMF domains and ecological levels using a rule-based decision protocol (i.e., assignment only when directly supported by review content). Second, N.J. independently audited the outcome/factor assignments for consistency, conceptual accuracy, and adherence to coding rules. This procedure ensured that mapping reflected the full scope of each review rather than forcing reviews into a single dominant category.
Public involvement
The review of reviews was undertaken with contributions from the Welsh National Centre for Population Health and Wellbeing Research public and patient involvement (PPI) group at multiple stages, including grant development, review conduct, and interpretation of results. This engagement helped to ensure that the research questions, methodological approach, and interpretation of findings were grounded in and informed by the lived experiences of individuals affected by the child welfare system. Public involvement activities focused on two principal stakeholder groups: children and young people aged 15–25 with care experience, engaged through CASCADE Voices, a research advisory group for care-experienced young people, and parents with experience of having a child removed from their care.
Results
Review selection and characteristics
Fig 1 presents detailed data on the review selection process. Of the 711 references initially imported, 656 were screened by title and abstract, leading to 143 full-text assessments. Finally, 77 reviews met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Among these reviews, 55 (71.4%) were systematic reviews [11,12,16, 28–72], of which 17 incorporated a meta-analysis [5,16,58,60–67,73–78]. Six (7.8%) were scoping reviews [13,14,79–82], and 16 (20.8%) were other review types [15,83–97]. The reviews included primary studies from at least 48 countries, with most conducted in the USA, followed by the UK, Canada, Australia, and Sweden. The primary studies spanned the years 1972–2022. Over 60% of the reviews assessed either the risk of bias or the quality of the included primary studies. The full characteristics of the included reviews are presented in Table 2.
Patterns in OHC outcomes reported in the included reviews
Publication activity on OHC outcomes increased over time before declining in recent years (Fig 2). Living Standards and Social Wellness was the most frequently reported outcome domain, while Identity and Civic Participation and Physical and Legal Security were least reported. Health and Emotional Wellbeing showed a steady level of research activity across the period, and Education and Learning gained attention from around 2017, followed by more modest levels afterward.
*Since reviews within the same year may cover multiple outcomes, a single review could be counted in several categories, resulting in totals that exceed the number of reviews.
The distribution of reviews across outcome indicators shows clear differences in research attention across domains (Fig 3). Within Health and Emotional Wellbeing, mental and emotional health received the greatest focus, while outcomes such as mortality were least examined. In Physical and Legal Security, research centred mainly on offending behaviours, with limited attention to victimisation, safety, and bullying. For Education and Learning, educational attainment dominated the evidence base, whereas readiness and access were less explored. In Living Standards and Social Wellness, attachment and behaviour functioning received the most attention, while housing outcomes were less frequently examined. Within Identity and Civic Participation, identity and self-respect were more commonly reported than participation and influence. Overall, these patterns point to strong concentration on mental health and attachment, alongside gaps in areas such as bullying, mortality, and early educational processes
Factors associated with the outcomes of OHC
Factors reported across outcome domains.
Across outcome domains, risk and protective factors were most often reported at the system, socio-relational, and individual child levels (Fig 4). For Health and Emotional Wellbeing, system-level influences were most prominent, followed by individual and socio-relational factors. Physical and Legal Security outcomes were mainly linked to socio-relational and system-level factors, with fewer references to individual child influences. For Education and Learning, socio-relational factors were most frequently reported, followed by system-level and individual factors. Living Standards and Social Wellness showed strong emphasis on both system-level and socio-relational influences, with individual-level factors also commonly reported. For Identity and Civic Participation, socio-relational and other contextual factors were most often cited, with fewer system-level and individual-level influences.
Health and emotional wellbeing
Within the Health and Emotional Wellbeing domain, most outcome indicators were primarily discussed in relation to system-level and individual child-level factors, with socio-relational influences also reported for several indicators (Fig 5). Mental and emotional health was mostly linked to system and socio-relational factors, while suicidality and self-harm were mainly discussed in relation to system-level influences. Mortality outcomes were largely examined through individual child-level factors, with little attention to social or community factors. Physical health and disability were also mainly linked to system-level factors. Reproductive and sexual health outcomes were most often related to socio-relational influences, while service access, healthy living behaviours, and general health were primarily associated with individual and system-level factors. Across all indicators, community-level influences were least examined, indicating a consistent gap in the evidence base.
Physical and legal security
Within the Physical and Legal Security domain, several outcome indicators were not examined across all factor levels, and community-level influences were largely absent (Fig 6). Victimisation was mainly discussed in relation to individual child-level factors, while maltreatment and neglect were most often linked to socio-relational influences, with additional attention to individual and system-level factors. General safety and bullying were primarily examined through system-level perspectives. Arrests, referrals, and convictions were discussed in relation to both system-level and socio-relational factors, while incarceration and imprisonment were mainly linked to system-level influences. Offending behaviours were most often associated with system-level and socio-relational factors. Overall, these patterns show a strong emphasis on formal systems and close relationships, with minimal attention to broader community contexts.
Education and learning
Within the Education and Learning domain, most outcome indicators were examined across multiple factor levels, with the exception of educational readiness and access, which was not linked to other contextual factors (Fig 7). Educational attainment was primarily discussed in relation to individual child and socio-relational influences, while cognitive and academic performance was commonly linked to both individual and system-level factors. School engagement was most often associated with system-level and socio-relational influences. Educational readiness and access was discussed in relation to individual, socio-relational, and system-level factors, but not in relation to other contextual influences. Overall, these patterns indicate that education outcomes in OHC are shaped mainly by individual, relational, and system-level factors, with limited attention to wider contextual influences.
Living standards and social wellness
Within the Living Standards and Social Wellness domain, most outcome indicators were discussed across individual, socio-relational, and system-level factors, while certain indicators showed limited links to broader contexts (Fig 8). Attachment and behaviour functioning were mainly examined in relation to system-level and socio-relational influences, with less attention to community-level factors. Income, deprivation, and poverty were mostly linked to system-level and individual child-level factors. Care-related experiences were primarily associated with socio-relational influences, while employment and labour outcomes were mainly discussed in relation to individual and system-level factors. Adjustment and out-of-care outcomes were examined in relation to both system-level and socio-relational influences. Housing and accommodation were most often linked to system-level factors. Across indicators, community-level and other contextual influences were rarely examined.
Identity and civic participation
Within the Identity and Civic Participation domain, community-level influences were not reported for any outcome indicators (Fig 9). Identity and self-respect were mainly discussed in relation to socio-relational and other contextual factors, with less attention to system-level and individual child-level influences. Participation and influence were examined only in relation to other contextual and system-level factors. Overall, this domain shows a narrow range of factor-level associations and limited coverage of broader social environments.
Discussion
This scoping review of 77 reviews identified for the first time critical patterns across domains of Health and Emotional Wellbeing, Physical and Legal Security, Education and Learning, Living Standards and Social Wellness, and Identity and Civic Participation, offering valuable insights into the factors reported in relation to these outcomes with the potential to inform future efforts. The novel findings show that research is concentrated in the Living Standards and Social Wellness and Health and Emotional Wellbeing domains, with fewer reviews on Identity and Civic Participation and Physical and Legal Security. Most factors were reported at the system, socio relational, and individual child levels, while community level influences were least reported. Viewed within the wider OHC context, these findings show that research attention mirrors long standing priorities in practice, including emotional wellbeing, behaviour, and placement experiences. Areas related to identity, participation, and community conditions have received relatively less focus, although they are important for long term stability and belonging. This suggests that current knowledge may not capture the full range of experiences that shape outcomes for children in OHC.
Patterns and gaps in research focus
This evidence map demonstrates a concentration of research efforts on specific of care-experienced individuals, particularly Living Standards and Social Wellness and Health and Emotional Wellbeing, both of which are closely tied to children’s immediate and long-term quality of life [13,37]. The consistent volume of research in these areas may reflect their prioritisation in policy and practice. However, Identity and Civic Participation emerged as the least reported domain, with far fewer reviews addressing outcomes about identity development, self-respect, influence and community participation. This disparity might suggest a critical gap in primary research, particularly given the importance of identity development and civic participation in fostering a sense of belonging and resilience among care-experienced children and young people [15]. Research on indicators often reflected uneven attention across domains. For example, within Health and Emotional Wellbeing, substantial emphasis was found on mental and emotional health, while indicators such as all-cause mortality had received little attention. A similar pattern was observed in Physical and Legal Security, where offending behaviours were well documented, whereas indicators such as bullying and being a victim of violent crime were relatively underrepresented. These patterns suggest a need for more balanced research efforts to ensure that less reported but equally critical aspects of children’s experiences are adequately addressed.
The review highlighted the prominence of system level factors (e.g., placement types and care quality) across all outcome domains. These factors were most frequently reported in relation to indicators such as attachment and behaviour functioning, as well as mental and emotional health. This finding aligns with a previous correlates review [98], highlighting the significant role of system and carer-related factors, particularly their impact on placement stability and behaviour of children in out-of-home care (OHC). However, while system-level factors were well-represented, community factors were minimally reported across all outcome domains. This gap may point to an unmet need for research exploring the influence of community-level factors such as neighbourhood characteristics in influencing outcomes of children in OHC.
The findings of this review of reviews also highlight the consistent reporting of socio-relational factors across several outcome indicators. Supportive social relationships with family and peers often act as protective factors, showing the value of maintaining family ties and supportive relationships for care-experienced children [43,55,70,96]. Nonetheless, the underrepresentation of socio-relational factors in domains such as Identity and Civic Participation and Legal and Physical Security points to potential areas for further exploration.
Strengths and limitations
This review represents a comprehensive analysis of review-level evidence, providing an overview of outcomes and associated factors for children in OHC. By extracting data from full texts rather than just abstracts, this study minimised the risk of missing relevant outcomes and factors. The involvement of care-experienced people in the study strengthened the review by incorporating diverse perspectives in refining the search strategy and contextualising findings [99]. However, limitations include the variability in methodological approaches and scope across the included reviews, which may affect the generalisability of some findings. The reliance on descriptive analysis, while useful for mapping the evidence base, limits the depth of the review’s conclusions. Nonetheless, the data and specific factor-outcome relationships are provided as a resource for stakeholders seeking evidence on factors influencing outcomes for children in OHC (see S2 File). It is worth noting that some included reviews [44,61,66,75,78] did not report moderating variables influencing outcomes but focused solely on outcomes for children following placement in OHC. These reviews typically compared children in OHC with those in the general population, offering limited insight into factors shaping various outcomes within the care-experienced group.
Future directions
Future research should aim to address the identified gaps by focusing on underexplored domains, such as Identity and Civic Participation and indicators including bullying, mortality, and educational readiness. Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers should collaborate to ensure that commissioning and evaluation frameworks place greater emphasis on community-level influences which were minimally reported across reviews despite their potential relevance to outcomes for children in OHC. Methodologies such as participatory research, involving care-experienced children and young people, can provide deeper insights into their lived experiences and priorities.
Conclusion
This review of reviews highlights significant patterns and gaps in the research on outcomes for children in OHC. We have not presented a synthesis of results on the direction or strength of associations and therefore are not making claims about causality. However, the paper does present a comprehensive overview of risk and protective factors and outcomes that have been measured to date. These are aspects that professionals should be aware of in their practice and consider in their assessments and ongoing progress monitoring of children and their families. Where evidence gaps exist, services should consider collecting high-quality data routinely, for example, by asking children and young people about their civic participation and developing identities. Such routine data could then be analysed through collaboration with researchers.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Development of outcome domains and indicators.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325409.s001
(DOCX)
S2 File. Factors reviewed on various outcome indicators.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325409.s002
(XLSX)
S3 Table. PRISMA checklist extension for scoping reviews.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325409.s003
(DOCX)
References
- 1.
Welsh Government. Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. Welsh Government. 2014. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2014/4/contents
- 2.
European Commission. European Child Guarantee. 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1428&langId=en
- 3.
Congressional Research Service. Child welfare: State plan requirements under the Title IV-E foster care, adoption assistance, and kinship guardianship assistance program. 2014. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R42794
- 4. Leloux-Opmeer H, Kuiper C, Swaab H, Scholte E. Characteristics of Children in Foster Care, Family-Style Group Care, and Residential Care: A Scoping Review. J Child Fam Stud. 2016;25:2357–71. pmid:27440989
- 5. Hassall A, Janse van Rensburg E, Trew S, Hawes DJ, Pasalich DS. Does Kinship vs. Foster Care Better Promote Connectedness? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2021;24(4):813–32. pmid:34114134
- 6. Bai R, Collins C, Fischer R, Groza V, Yang L. Exploring the association between housing insecurity and child welfare involvement: A systematic review. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2020.
- 7. Semanchin Jones A, LaLiberte T. Risk and Protective Factors of Foster Care Reentry: An Examination of the Literature. Journal of Public Child Welfare. 2017;11(4–5):516–45.
- 8. Jäggi L, Jaramillo J, Drazdowski TK, Seker S. Child welfare involvement and adjustment among care alumni and their children: A systematic review of risk and protective factors. Child Abuse Negl. 2022;131:105776. pmid:35785678
- 9. Peddireddy SR, Austin AE, Gottfredson NC. Factors contributing to level and type of child welfare involvement following prenatal substance exposure: A scoping review. Child Abuse Negl. 2022;125:105484. pmid:35032823
- 10. Stabler L, Evans R, Scourfield J, Morgan F, Weightman A, Willis S, et al. A scoping review of system-level mechanisms to prevent children being in out-of-home care. Br J Soc Work. 2021;52(5):2515–36. pmid:36685801
- 11. Tang A, Ertel KA, Keen R, Beyer L, Eckert N, Mita C, et al. Parent-child separation and cardiometabolic outcomes and risk factors in adulthood: A systematic review. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2023;152:106084. pmid:36996574
- 12. Carr A, Duff H, Craddock F. A Systematic Review of the Outcome of Child Abuse in Long-Term Care. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2020;21(4):660–77. pmid:30033824
- 13. Álvarez RG, Parra LA, Ten Brummelaar M, Avraamidou L, López ML. Resilience among LGBTQIA+ youth in out-of-home care: A scoping review. Child Abuse Negl. 2022;129:105660. pmid:35525034
- 14. Lund S, Stokes C. The educational outcomes of children in care – a scoping review. Child Aust. 2020;45:249–57.
- 15. Lutman E, Barter C. Peer violence in foster care: a review of the research evidence. Child & Family Social Work. 2016;22(2):1104–13.
- 16. Li D, Chng GS, Chu CM. Comparing Long-Term Placement Outcomes of Residential and Family Foster Care: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2019;20(5):653–64. pmid:29333987
- 17. Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32.
- 18.
Brunton G, Booth A, Carroll C. Undertaking a Framework Synthesis. In: Noyes J, Harden A, editors. Cochrane-Campbell Handbook for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. London: Wiley. 2026.
- 19. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. pmid:30178033
- 20. Opoku R, Judd N, Cresswell K, Parker M, James M, Scourfield J, et al. Factors associated with childhood out-of-home care entry and re-entry in high income countries: A systematic review of reviews. Children and Youth Services Review. 2025;177:108467.
- 21. Goertzen L, Halas G, Rothney J, Schultz AS, Wener P, Enns JE, et al. Mapping a Decade of Physical Activity Interventions for Primary Prevention: A Protocol for a Scoping Review of Reviews. JMIR Res Protoc. 2015;4(3):e91. pmid:26215502
- 22. Halas G, Schultz ASH, Rothney J, Wener P, Holmqvist M, Cohen B, et al. A Scoping Review of Foci, Trends, and Gaps in Reviews of Tobacco Control Research. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22(5):599–612. pmid:30715468
- 23. King K, Meader N, Wright K, Graham H, Power C, Petticrew M, et al. Characteristics of interventions targeting multiple lifestyle risk behaviours in adult populations: a systematic scoping review. PLoS One. 2015;10(1):e0117015. pmid:25617783
- 24. Lowe A, Gee M, McLean S, Littlewood C, Lindsay C, Everett S. Physical activity promotion in physiotherapy practice: a systematic scoping review of a decade of literature. Br J Sports Med. 2018;52(2):122–7. pmid:28003241
- 25. Schultz A, Goertzen L, Rothney J, Wener P, Enns J, Halas G, et al. A scoping approach to systematically review published reviews: Adaptations and recommendations. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(1):116–23. pmid:29032590
- 26. Edney LC, Roseleur J, Gray J, Koczwara B, Karnon J. Mapping a decade of interventions to address the supportive care needs of individuals living with or beyond cancer: a scoping review of reviews. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(5):3793–804. pmid:35029770
- 27. Holder H, Tsang T, Vizard P. Developing the children’s measurement framework: selecting the indicators. 2011. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/id/eprint/9997/1/rr76.pdf
- 28. Doab A, Fowler C, Dawson A. Factors that influence mother-child reunification for mothers with a history of substance use: A systematic review of the evidence to inform policy and practice in Australia. Int J Drug Policy. 2015;26(9):820–31. pmid:26152330
- 29. Loomis AM, Feely M, Kennedy S. Measuring self-reported polyvictimization in foster youth research: A systematic review. Child Abuse Negl. 2020;107:104588. pmid:32535337
- 30. Townsend IM, Berger EP, Reupert AE. Systematic review of the educational experiences of children in care: Children’s perspectives. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;111:104835.
- 31. Winokur MA, Holtan A, Batchelder KE. Systematic review of kinship care effects on safety, permanency, and well-being outcomes. Research on Social Work Practice. 2018;19–32.
- 32. Johnson RM. The state of research on undergraduate youth formerly in foster care: A systematic review of the literature. J Divers High Educ. 2019;147–60.
- 33. Randolph KA, Thompson H. A systematic review of interventions to improve post-secondary educational outcomes among foster care alumni. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;79:602–11.
- 34. Fry CE, Langley K, Shelton KH. A systematic review of cognitive functioning among young people who have experienced homelessness, foster care, or poverty. Child Neuropsychol. 2017;23(8):907–34. pmid:27584083
- 35. Costa M, Mota CP, Matos PM. Predictors of Psychosocial Adjustment in Adolescents in Residential Care: A Systematic Review. Child Care in Practice. 2019;28(1):52–81.
- 36. Engler AD, Sarpong KO, Van Horne BS, Greeley CS, Keefe RJ. A Systematic Review of Mental Health Disorders of Children in Foster Care. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2022;23(1):255–64. pmid:32686611
- 37. Lou Y, Taylor EP, Di Folco S. Resilience and resilience factors in children in residential care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;89:83–92.
- 38. Wilson B, Barnett LM. Physical activity interventions to improve the health of children and adolescents in out of home care – A systematic review of the literature. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;110:104765.
- 39. Xu Y, Bright CL. Children’s mental health and its predictors in kinship and non-kinship foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;89:243–62.
- 40. Cameron-Mathiassen J, Leiper J, Simpson J, McDermott E. What was care like for me? A systematic review of the experiences of young people living in residential care. Children and Youth Services Review. 2022;138:106524.
- 41. Lee JY, Kirsch J, Presley S, Beal SJ, Xu Y, Radney A, et al. Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the Physical Health Outcomes of Children in Foster Care: A Systematic Review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2024;25(1):197–214. pmid:36704939
- 42. Thompson AE, Greeson JKP, Brunsink AM. Natural mentoring among older youth in and aging out of foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2016;61:40–50.
- 43. Hayes C, Bhaskara A, Tongs C, Bisht A, Buus N. What Purpose do Voices Serve If No One is Listening? A Systematic Review of Children and Young People’s Perspectives on Living in the Foster Care System. Child Youth Care Forum. 2023;53(3):525–62.
- 44. Kang-Yi CD, Adams DR. Youth with Behavioral Health Disorders Aging Out of Foster Care: a Systematic Review and Implications for Policy, Research, and Practice. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44(1):25–51. pmid:26452762
- 45. Garcia Quiroga M, Hamilton-Giachritsis C. Attachment Styles in Children Living in Alternative Care: A Systematic Review of the Literature. Child Youth Care Forum. 2016;45:625–53. pmid:27429536
- 46. Boyle C. ‘What is the impact of birth family contact on children in adoption and long‐term foster care?’ A systematic review. Child & Family Social Work. 2015;22(S1):22–33.
- 47. Eastman AL, Palmer L, Ahn E. Pregnant and Parenting Youth in Care and Their Children: A Literature Review. Child Adolesc Soc Work J. 2019;36(6):571–81.
- 48. Goding N, Hartwell B, Kreppner J. “Everyone has the ability actualy to do well in education. It’s just the support mechanisms that you give to them…”: A systematic literature review exploring the educational experiences of children in care. Children and Youth Services Review. 2022;137:106474.
- 49. Wright AW, Richard S, Sosnowski DW, Kliewer W. Predictors of Better Functioning among Institutionalized Youth: A Systematic Review. J Child Fam Stud. 2019;28(12):3245–67.
- 50. Häggman-Laitila A, Salokekkilä P, Karki S. Young people’s preparedness for adult life and coping after foster care: A systematic review of perceptions and experiences in the transition period. Child Youth Care Forum. 2019;633–61.
- 51. H. Lloyd M. Health Determinants, Maternal Addiction, and Foster Care: Current Knowledge and Directions for Future Research. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions. 2018;18(4):339–63.
- 52. Rock S, Michelson D, Thomson S, Day C. Understanding Foster Placement Instability for Looked After Children: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence. British Journal of Social Work. 2013;45(1):177–203.
- 53. Milde AM, Gramm HB, Paaske I, Kleiven PG, Christiansen Ø, Skaale Havnen KJ. Suicidality among children and youth in Nordic child welfare services: A systematic review. Child Fam Soc Work. 2021;26:708–19.
- 54. Vanderwill LA, Salazar AM, Jenkins G, Larwelle J, McMahon AK, Day A, et al. Systematic literature review of foster and adoptive caregiver factors for increasing placement stability and permanency. Journal of Public Child Welfare. 2020;15(4):487–527.
- 55. Saarnik H. A Systematic Review of Factors Needed for Successful Foster Placements: Perspectives from Children and Foster Parents. Child & Youth Services. 2021;42(4):374–92.
- 56. Poitras K, Porlier S, Tarabulsy GM. Child’s adjustment and parent-child contact after child placement into foster care: a systematic review. Journal of Public Child Welfare. 2021;16(5):575–606.
- 57. Nuñez M, Beal SJ, Jacquez F. Resilience factors in youth transitioning out of foster care: A systematic review. Psychol Trauma. 2022;14(S1):S72–81. pmid:34582226
- 58. Cassarino-Perez L, Crous G, Goemans A, Montserrat C, Sarriera JC. From care to education and employment: A meta-analysis. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2018;95:407–16.
- 59. Washington T, Wrenn A, Kaye H, Priester MA, Colombo G, Carter K, et al. Psychosocial factors and behavioral health outcomes among children in Foster and Kinship care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;90:118–33.
- 60. Strijbosch ELL, Huijs JAM, Stams GJJM, Wissink IB, van der Helm GHP, de Swart JJW, et al. The outcome of institutional youth care compared to non-institutional youth care for children of primary school age and early adolescence: A multi-level meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review. 2015;58:208–18.
- 61. Goemans A, van Geel M, Vedder P. Over three decades of longitudinal research on the development of foster children: a meta-analysis. Child Abuse Negl. 2015;42:121–34. pmid:25724659
- 62. DeLuca Bishop HK, Claxton SE, van Dulmen MHM. The romantic relationships of those who have experienced adoption or foster care: A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review. 2019;105:104407.
- 63. Zhang S, Conner A, Lim Y, Lefmann T. Trauma-informed care for children involved with the child welfare system: A meta-analysis. Child Abuse Negl. 2021;122:105296. pmid:34478999
- 64. Konijn C, Admiraal S, Baart J, van Rooij F, Stams G-J, Colonnesi C, et al. Foster care placement instability: A meta-analytic review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2019;96:483–99.
- 65. Dubois-Comtois K, Bussières E-L, Cyr C, St-Onge J, Baudry C, Milot T, et al. Are children and adolescents in foster care at greater risk of mental health problems than their counterparts? A meta-analysis. Children and Youth Services Review. 2021;127:106100.
- 66. DeLuca HK, Claxton SE, Dulmen MHM. The peer relationships of those who have experienced adoption or foster care: A meta‐analysis. J Res Adolesc. 2019;29:796–813.
- 67. Poon CYS, Christensen KM, Rhodes JE. A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Mentoring on Youth in Foster Care. J Youth Adolesc. 2021;50(9):1741–56. pmid:34240254
- 68. Yoon M, Bender AE, Park J. The association between out-of-home placement and offending behavior among maltreated youth: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;95:263–81.
- 69. Kääriälä A, Hiilamo H. Children in out-of-home care as young adults: A systematic review of outcomes in the Nordic countries. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;79:107–14.
- 70. Day A, Willis T, Vanderwill L, Resko S, Patterson D, Henneman K, et al. Key factors and characteristics of successful resource parents who care for older youth: A systematic review of research. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;84:152–8.
- 71. O’Higgins A, Sebba J, Gardner F. What are the factors associated with educational achievement for children in kinship or foster care: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;79:198–220.
- 72. Häggman-Laitila A, Salokekkilä P, Karki S. Transition to adult life of young people leaving foster care: A qualitative systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review. 2018;95:134–43.
- 73. Batty GD, Kivimäki M, Frank P. State care in childhood and adult mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Lancet Public Health. 2022;7(6):e504–14. pmid:35660212
- 74. Bronsard G, Alessandrini M, Fond G, Loundou A, Auquier P, Tordjman S, et al. The Prevalence of Mental Disorders Among Children and Adolescents in the Child Welfare System: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(7):e2622. pmid:26886603
- 75. Evans R, White J, Turley R, Slater T, Morgan H, Strange H, et al. Comparison of suicidal ideation, suicide attempt and suicide in children and young people in care and non-care populations: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence. Children and Youth Services Review. 2017;82:122–9.
- 76. Bergström M, Cederblad M, Håkansson K, Jonsson AK, Munthe C, Vinnerljung B, et al. Interventions in Foster Family Care: A Systematic Review. Research on Social Work Practice. 2019;30(1):3–18.
- 77. Chodura S, Lohaus A, Symanzik T, Heinrichs N, Konrad K. Foster Parents’ Parenting and the Social-Emotional Development and Adaptive Functioning of Children in Foster Care: A PRISMA-Guided Literature Review and Meta-Analysis. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2021;24(2):326–47. pmid:33590373
- 78. Seker S, Boonmann C, Gerger H, Jäggi L, d’Huart D, Schmeck K, et al. Mental disorders among adults formerly in out-of-home care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2022;31(12):1963–82. pmid:34169369
- 79. Phillips A, Halligan S, Lavi I, Macleod J, Robinson S, Wilkins D. A scoping review of factors associated with the mental health of young people who have “aged out” of the child welfare system. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2023.
- 80. Quarmby T, Pickering K. Physical Activity and Children in Care: A Scoping Review of Barriers, Facilitators, and Policy for Disadvantaged Youth. J Phys Act Health. 2016;13(7):780–7. pmid:26900940
- 81. Hurry K, Ridsdale L, Davies J, V E M. The dental health of looked after children in the UK and dental care pathways: A scoping review. Community Dent Health. 2023.
- 82. Geiger JM, Beltran SJ. Readiness, Access, Preparation, and Support for Foster Care Alumni in Higher Education: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Public Child Welfare. 2017;11(4–5):487–515.
- 83. Biehal N. Maltreatment in Foster Care: A review of the evidence. Child Abuse Review. 2013;23(1):48–60.
- 84. Miranda M, Molla E, Eman T. Implications of Foster Care on Attachment: A Literature Review. Fam J. 2019;27:394–403. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/implications-foster-care-on-attachment-literature/docview/2287453789/se-2?accountid=14680
- 85. Osei GK, Gorey KM, Jozefowicz DMH. Delinquency and crime prevention: Overview of research comparing treatment foster care and group care. Child Youth Care Forum. 2016;33–46.
- 86. Steels S, Simpson H. Perceptions of Children in Residential Care Homes: A Critical Review of the Literature. The British Journal of Social Work. 2017;47(6):1704–22.
- 87. Stewart SL, Leschied A, den Dunnen W, Zalmanowitz S, Baiden P. Treating Mental Health Disorders for Children in Child Welfare Care: Evaluating the Outcome Literature. Child Youth Care Forum. 2012;42(2):131–54.
- 88. Welch V, Jones C, Stalker K, Stewart A. Permanence for disabled children and young people through foster care and adoption: A selective review of international literature. Children and Youth Services Review. 2015;53:137–46.
- 89. Zabern A, Bouteyre E. Leading protective factors for children living out of home: A literature review. Child & Family Social Work. 2017;23(2):324–35.
- 90. Brown L, Sen R. Improving outcomes for looked after children: A critical analysis of kinship care. Pract Soc Work Action. 2014;26:161–80.
- 91. Collins JL. Integrative Review: Delivery of Healthcare Services to Adolescents and Young Adults During and After Foster Care. J Pediatr Nurs. 2016;31(6):653–66. pmid:27491283
- 92. DiGiovanni A, Font SA. Revisiting conventional wisdom: What do we know from 30 years of research on sibling placement in foster care? Child Youth Serv Rev. 2021;126.
- 93.
Geiger JM, Beltran SJ. Experiences and outcomes of foster care alumni in postsecondary education: A review of the literature. 2017.
- 94. Gillum NL, Lindsay T, Murray FL, Wells P. A Review of Research on College Educational Outcomes of Students Who Experienced Foster Care. Journal of Public Child Welfare. 2016;10(3):291–309.
- 95. Häggman-Laitila A, Salokekkilä P, Karki S. Integrative review of the evaluation of additional support programs for care leavers making the transition to adulthood. J Pediatr Nurs. 2020;54:63–77. pmid:32554137
- 96. Kekoni T, Miettinen J, Häkälä N, Savolainen A. Child development in foster family care – what really counts? European Journal of Social Work. 2017;22(1):107–20.
- 97. Mazzone A, Nocentini A, Menesini E. Bullying and peer violence among children and adolescents in residential care settings: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior. 2018;38:101–12.
- 98. Jones R, Everson-Hock ES, Papaioannou D, Guillaume L, Goyder E, Chilcott J, et al. Factors associated with outcomes for looked-after children and young people: a correlates review of the literature. Child Care Health Dev. 2011;37(5):613–22. pmid:21434967
- 99.
Opoku R, Judd N, Cresswell K, Parker M, James M, Scourfield J, et al. Factors Associated with Childhood Out-of-Home Care Entry and Re-Entry in High Income Countries: A Systematic Review of Reviews. Elsevier BV. 2025. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5136479