Socioeconomic status is a major predictor of educational achievement. This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to identify effective academic interventions for elementary and middle school students with low socioeconomic status. Included studies have used a treatment-control group design, were performed in OECD and EU countries, and measured achievement by standardized tests in mathematics or reading. The analysis included 101 studies performed during 2000 to 2014, 76% of which were randomized controlled trials. The effect sizes (ES) of many interventions indicate that it is possible to substantially improve educational achievement for the target group. Intervention components such as tutoring (ES = 0.36), feedback and progress monitoring (ES = 0.32), and cooperative learning (ES = 0.22) have average ES that are educationally important, statistically significant, and robust. There is also substantial variation in effect sizes, within and between components, which cannot be fully explained by observable study characteristics.

Background: Low levels of numeracy and literacy skills are associated with a range of negative outcomes later in life, such as reduced earnings and health. Obtaining information about effective interventions for children with or at risk of academic difficulties is therefore important.Objectives: The main objective was to assess the effectiveness of interventions targeting students with or at risk of academic difficulties in kindergarten to Grade 6.Search Methods: We searched electronic databases from 1980 to July 2018. We searched multiple international electronic databases (in total 15), seven national repositories, and performed a search of the grey literature using governmental sites, academic clearinghouses and repositories for reports and working papers, and trial registries (10 sources). We hand searched recent volumes of six journals and contacted international experts. Lastly, we used included studies and 23 previously published reviews for citation tracking.Selection Criteria: Studies had to meet the following criteria to be included:• Population: The population eligible for the review included students attending regular schools in kindergarten to Grade 6, who were having academic difficulties, or were at risk of such difficulties.• Intervention: We included interventions that sought to improve academic skills, were conducted in schools during the regular school year, and were targeted (selected or indicated).• Comparison: Included studies used an intervention-control group design or a comparison group design. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT); quasirandomised controlled trials (QRCT); and quasi-experimental studies (QES).• Outcomes: Included studies used standardised tests in reading or mathematics.

This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of 12‐step programs in reducing the use of illicit drugs. The review summarises findings from 10 studies, nine of which were conducted in the United States. The main evidence presented in this review suggests that 12‐step programs for reducing illicit drug use are neither better nor worse than other interventions. This conclusion should be read with caution given the weakness of the evidence from the studies. The power to detect a difference between the 12‐step interventions and alternative psychosocial interventions was low and the estimated effect sizes were small. Many studies failed to adjust for the fact that the intervention is administered to groups, and so may overestimate effects. Given all these shortcomings, further evidence regarding the effectiveness of this type of intervention, especially in self‐help groups, is needed. Plain language summary 12‐step programs for reducing illicit drug use are neither better nor worse than other interventionsIllicit drug abuse has serious and far‐reaching implications for the abuser, their family members, friends, and society as a whole. Preferred intervention programs are those that effectively reduce illicit drug use and its negative consequences, and are cost‐effective as well. Current evidence shows that overall, 12‐step programs are just as effective as alternative, psychosocial interventions. The costs of programs are, therefore, an important consideration. However, the strength of the studies is weak and further evidence regarding the effectiveness of 12‐step programs is needed. What did the review study?Illicit drug abuse is a globally recognised problem leading to high human, social and economic costs.The 12‐step program, modelled on the approach of Alcoholics Anonymous and adopted by Narcotics Anonymous and others, aims for complete abstinence. The 12‐step approach is used both by self‐help groups and for professional treatment called Twelve Step Facilitation (TSF).This review examines the effectiveness of 12‐step programs in reducing the use of illicit drugs. Secondary outcomes considered are on criminal behaviour, prostitution, psychiatric symptoms, social functioning, employment status, homelessness, and treatment retention. What studies are included?Included studies assess 12‐step interventions for participants with illicit drug dependence using randomized controlled trials and quasi‐experimental studies. Study populations are participants who have used one or more types of illicit drugs, regardless of gender and ethnic background.A total of 10 studies consisting of 1,071 participants are included in the final evaluation. Nine of the studies were conducted in the United States, and one in the United Kingdom. The studies compare the 12‐step program to alternative interventions. Nine studies were included in meta‐analysis. What are the main results in this review?There is no difference in the effectiveness of 12‐step interventions compared to alternative psychosocial interventions in reducing dru...

No abstract

The real-world impact of psychosis prevention is reliant on effective strategies for identifying individuals at risk. A transdiagnostic, individualized, clinically-based risk calculator to improve this has been developed and externally validated twice in two different UK healthcare trusts with convincing results. The prognostic performance of this risk calculator outside the UK is unknown. All individuals who accessed primary or secondary health care services belonging to the IBM® MarketScan® Commercial Database between January 2015 and December 2017, and received a first ICD-10 index diagnosis of nonorganic/nonpsychotic mental disorder, were included. According to the risk calculator, age, gender, ethnicity, age-by-gender, and ICD-10 cluster diagnosis at index date were used to predict development of any ICD-10 nonorganic psychotic disorder. Because patient-level ethnicity data were not available city-level ethnicity proportions were used as proxy. The study included 2,430,333 patients with a mean follow-up of 15.36 months and cumulative incidence of psychosis at two years of 1.43%. There were profound differences compared to the original development UK database in terms of case-mix, psychosis incidence, distribution of baseline predictors (ICD-10 cluster diagnoses), availability of patient-level ethnicity data, follow-up time and availability of specialized clinical services for at-risk individuals. Despite these important differences, the model retained accuracy significantly above chance (Harrell’s C = 0.676, 95% CI: 0.672–0.679). To date, this is the largest international external replication of an individualized prognostic model in the field of psychiatry. This risk calculator is transportable on an international scale to improve the automatic detection of individuals at risk of psychosis.