No abstract

No abstract

The Child Advocacy Center (CAC) model has been presented as the solution to many of the problems inherent in responses by authorities to child sexual abuse. The lack of referral to therapeutic services and support, procedurally flawed and potentially traumatic investigation practices, and conflict between the different statutory agencies involved are all thought to contribute to low conviction rates for abuse and poor outcomes for children. The CAC model aims to address these problems through a combination of multidisciplinary teams, joint investigations, and services, all provided in a single child friendly environment. Using a systematic search strategy, this research aimed to identify and review all studies that have evaluated the effectiveness of the approach as a whole, recognizing that a separate evidence base exists for parts of the approach (e.g., victim advocacy and therapeutic responses). The review found that while the criminal justice outcomes of the model have been well studied, there was a lack of research on the effect of the model on child and family outcomes. Although some modest outcomes were clear, the lack of empirical research, and overreliance on measuring program outputs, rather than outcomes, suggests that some clarification of the goals of the CAC model is needed.

Multi-Disciplinary teams (MDTs) have often been presented as the key to dealing with a number of intractable problems associated with responding to allegations of physical and sexual child abuse. While these approaches have proliferated internationally, researchers have complained of the lack of a specific evidence base identifying the processes and structures supporting multi-disciplinary work and how these contribute to high-level outcomes. This systematic search of the literature aims to synthesize the existing state of knowledge on the effectiveness of MDTs. This review found that overall there is reasonable evidence to support the idea that MDTs are effective in improving criminal justice and mental health responses compared to standard agency practices. The next step toward developing a viable evidence base to inform these types of approaches seems to be to more clearly identify the mechanisms associated with effective MDTs in order to better inform how they are planned and implemented.

Internationally, there are few interventions that promote healthy lifestyles in the out‐of‐home care (OOHC) sector. The aim of this quantitative study was to measure the efficacy of the Healthy Eating, Active Living (HEAL) programme for young people who live in residential OOHC and their carers. Seventy young people and 177 carers were recruited between August 2012 and October 2014 from 48 residential care units across metropolitan Melbourne and regional Victoria, Australia. The HEAL programme included educational sessions for young people, and professional development for carers to foster healthy eating and physical activity. Young people and carers completed questionnaires measuring behavioural, psychosocial and motivational outcomes. Objective measures of height and weight were collected for young people and self‐reported by carers. The findings revealed no evidence for the efficacy of the HEAL intervention for either young people or carers. The most likely explanation for the null result was difficulties associated with: (1) collecting quantitative data for evaluative purposes in vulnerable populations (particularly the impact of attrition on statistical power); and (2) implementing interventions in complex environments. We conclude with a summary of lessons learnt and recommendations for future research in this unique setting. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Key Practitioner Messages There are a number of challenges inherent to collecting longitudinal data and/or employing a randomised trial design in this setting. Researchers working in this area need to acknowledge the critical need for this type of research but also consider alternative approaches to data collection. It is integral that organisational practices and/or policies are in place so that a HEAL philosophy is embedded in the residential OOHC culture; in other words, HEAL becomes a part of each organisation's values, goals and shared expectations.