Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Families and Schools Together (FAST) for improving outcomes for children and their families

Esta versión no es la más reciente

ver la versión actual 31 julio 2019

Información

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012760Copiar DOI
Base de datos:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Versión publicada:
  1. 30 agosto 2017see what's new
Tipo:
  1. Intervention
Etapa:
  1. Protocol
Grupo Editorial Cochrane:

  1. Grupo Cochrane de Problemas de desarrollo, psicosociales y de aprendizaje

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2017 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cifras del artículo

Altmetric:

Citado por:

Citado 0 veces por enlace Crossref Cited-by

Contraer

Autores

  • Geraldine Macdonald

    School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

  • Nuala Livingstone

    Cochrane Editorial Unit, Cochrane, London, UK

  • Jeffrey C Valentine

    Correspondencia a: Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology, University of Louisville, Louisville, USA

    [email protected]

Contributions of authors

Geraldine Macdonald (GM) is responsible for conceiving, designing and co‐ordinating the review, providing general advice, contributing to the development of the protocol and securing funding for the review.

Both Nuala Livingstone and Jeffrey C Valentine contributed to the development of the protocol.

GM has overall responsibility for the review.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • University of Bristol, UK.

    Salary for Geraldine Macdonald

External sources

  • HSC R&D Division Public Health Agency, UK.

    Provided funding to support Clive Robinson in the development of this protocol.

Declarations of interest

Geraldine Macdonald ‐ is the Co‐ordinating Editor of the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group. She will not take an active role in the editorial process for this review.

Nuala Livingstone ‐ is an Editor with the Cochrane Editorial Unit and the Cochrane Developmental, Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group.

Jeff Valentine ‐ is a Statistician with the Cochrane Developmental Psychosocial and Learning Problems Group.

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Margaret Anderson for assistance with the search strategy, Dr Mark McCann for statistical input, and Dr Joanne Wilson for help with the quality assurance and publication processes of this protocol.

Thanks also to Clive Robinson who contributed to the development of this protocol with funding from the Health and Social Care (HSC) Research and Development (R&D) Division of the Public Health Agency of Northern Ireland.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2019 Jul 31

Families and Schools Together (FAST) for improving outcomes for children and their families

Review

Jeffrey C Valentine, Stephen M Leach, Allison P Fowler, Diana K Stojda, Geraldine Macdonald

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012760.pub2

2017 Aug 30

Families and Schools Together (FAST) for improving outcomes for children and their families

Protocol

Geraldine Macdonald, Nuala Livingstone, Jeffrey C Valentine

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012760

PICO

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

El uso y la enseñanza del modelo PICO están muy extendidos en el ámbito de la atención sanitaria basada en la evidencia para formular preguntas y estrategias de búsqueda y para caracterizar estudios o metanálisis clínicos. PICO son las siglas en inglés de cuatro posibles componentes de una pregunta de investigación: paciente, población o problema; intervención; comparación; desenlace (outcome).

Para saber más sobre el uso del modelo PICO, puede consultar el Manual Cochrane.

Table 1. Judgements underpinning 'Risk of bias' assessments

Random sequence generation

  1. Where robust methods of sequence allocation were employed, we will record the risk of bias 'low' (Schultz 2002).

  2. Where nonrandom or nonsystematic approaches were employed, we will record the risk of bias as 'high'.

  3. Where insufficient detail is provided to make a judgement, we will record the risk of bias as 'unclear'.

Allocation concealment

  1. Where robust methods of concealment were employed, and participants and investigators could not determine assignment prior to allocation, we will record the risk of bias as 'low'.

  2. Where the possibility for allocation disclosure and consequent selection bias was present, we will record the risk of bias as 'high'.

  3. Where insufficient detail is provided to make a judgement, we will record the risk of bias as 'unclear'.

Blinding of participants and personnel

  1. Where blinding of participants and study personnel was maintained, or where no blinding or incomplete blinding occurred but the review authors judge that the ocutome was not likely to have been influenced by the lack of blinding, we will record the risk of bias as 'low'.

  2. Where no or incomplete blinding occurred and could have affected outcomes, or where blinding occurred but there is a likelihood that it could have been broken and the outcome influenced as a result, we will record the risk of bias as 'high'.

  3. Where insufficient detail is provided to make a judgement, we will record the risk of bias as 'unclear'.

Blinding of outcome assessment

  1. Where blinding was robustly applied, there was partial blinding of participants or key personnel, or no blinding took place but the review authors judge that the lack of blinding is unlikely to affect the measures employed or reported outcomes of the study, we will record the risk of bias as 'low'.

  2. Where incomplete or inefficient blinding occurred, and the measures or outcomes are likely to be affected as a result, we will record the risk of bias as 'high'.

  3. Where insufficient detail is provided to make a judgement, we will record the risk of bias as 'unclear'.

Incomplete outcome data

  1. Where there are no missing data, the reasons for missing data are unlikely to be related to the true outcome, or the effect of missing data is not enough to have a clinically relevant impact, we will record the risk of bias as 'low'.

  2. Where the reason for missing data is likely to be related to outcomes, or is sufficient to produce a clinically relevant bias, we will record the risk of bias as 'high'.

  3. Where insufficient detail is provided to make a judgement, we will record the risk of bias as 'unclear'.

Selective Outcome Reporting

  1. Where outcomes have been reported in accordance with the protocol, or all the expected outcomes have been presented, we will record the risk of bias as 'low'.

  2. Where there is some variance in reporting outcomes from that specified in the protocol, reporting is incomplete, or the study fails to include results for a key outcome, we will record the risk of bias as 'high'.

  3. Where insufficient detail is provided to make a judgement, we will record the risk of bias as 'unclear'.

Figuras y tablas -
Table 1. Judgements underpinning 'Risk of bias' assessments
Ir a la tabla del protocolo