Family Group Decision Making for children at risk of abuse and neglect

Shlonsky, Aron; Schumaker, Kate; Cook, Charlene; Crampton, David; Saini, Michael; Backe‐Hansen, Elisabeth; Kowalski, Krystyna

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007984.pub2

Cited by 1 publication

(10 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three studies were reported in two study reports. Baumann (2006) and Sheets et al (2009), reported findings from the same study. Baumann reported findings on the nature of children's placements, Sheets et al reported some of these findings, but also additional findings related to service user satisfaction.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 61%

“…Sheets et al (2009) compared survey responses from FGDM and non‐FGDM parents and relatives under three headings: satisfaction with family plan; understanding of what was expected of them; and sense of empowerment. Data were collected using an unvalidated 5‐point rating scale and sample sizes ranged from 50 to 636.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While we have called for more rigorous evaluation of FGDM, and a process of FGDM development in response to more rigorous evaluation, we would hope that the findings reported here do not contribute to a side‐lining of FGDM. Service users prefer FGDM (Sheets et al, 2009; Walker, 2005). Practitioners who engage with FGDM are also positive about it as they have found it reduces conflict between practitioners and families (Wick, 2014).…”

Section: Authors' Conclusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(1) Child Welfare Personal communications were also deployed in the search for relevant articles, as described in the review protocol (Shlonsky et al, 2009) these comprised of face-to-face discussions with presenters and emails to experts, and relevant study authors.…”

Section: Searching Other Resourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While commentary on the implementation and success of FGDM is extensive, relatively few studies of efficacy have been conducted (Frost et al, 2014). The current evidence base is routinely cited as positive by researchers studying FGDM, together with reviewers, and commentators on the topic area (including but not limited to: Baumann, 2006; Berzin, 2006; Burford, 1999; Lambert, Johnson, & Wang, 2017; Pennell, Edwards, & Burford, 2010; Sheets et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Family group decision‐making for children at risk of abuse or neglect: A systematic review

McGinn

Best

Wilson

et al. 2020

Campbell Systematic Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Capturing the scale of child maltreatment is difficult, but few would argue that it is anything less than a global problem which can affect victims’ health and well‐being throughout their life. Systems of detection, investigation and intervention for maltreated children are the subject of continued review and debate. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of the formal use of family group decision‐making (FGDM) in terms of child safety, permanence (of child's living situation), child and family well‐being, and client satisfaction with the decision‐making process. Search Methods Both published and unpublished manuscripts were considered eligible for this review. Library staff from Scholarly Information (Brownless Biomedical Library) University of Melbourne, conducted 14 systematic bibliographic searches. Reviewers also checked the reference lists of all relevant articles obtained, and reference lists from previously published reviews. Researchers also hand‐searched 10 relevant journals. Selection Criteria Study samples of children and young people, aged 0–18 years, who have been the subject of a child maltreatment investigation, were eligible for this review. Studies had to have used random assignment to create treatment and control groups; or, parallel cohorts in which groups were assessed at the same point in time. Any form of FGDM, used in the course of a child maltreatment investigation or service, was considered an eligible intervention if it involved: a concerted effort to convene family, extended family, and community members; and professionals; and involved a planned meeting with the intention of working collaboratively to develop a plan for the safety well‐being of children; with a focus on family‐centred decision‐making. Data Collection and Analysis Two review authors independently extracted the necessary data from each study report, using the software application Covidence. Covidence highlighted discrepancies between data extracted by separate reviewers, further analysis was conducted until a consensus was reached on what data were to be included in the review. Two authors also independently conducted analyses of study bias. Main Results Eighteen eligible study reports were found, providing findings from 15 studies, involving 18 study samples. Four were randomised controlled trials (RCTs; N = 941) the remainder employed quasi‐experimental designs with parallel cohorts. Three of the quasi‐experimental studies used prospective evaluations of nonrandomly assigned comparison groups (N = 4,368); the rest analysed pre‐existing survey data, child protection case files or court data (N = 91,786). The total number of children studied was 97,095. The longest postintervention follow‐up period was 3 years. Only four studies were conducted outside the United States; two in Canada and one in Sweden and one in the Netherlands. The review authors judged there to be a moderate or high risk of bias, in most of the bias categories considered. Only one study referenced a study protocol. Eleven of the fi...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 61%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%