Does Kinship vs. Foster Care Better Promote Connectedness? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- PMID: 34114134
- DOI: 10.1007/s10567-021-00352-6
Does Kinship vs. Foster Care Better Promote Connectedness? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Erratum in
-
Correction to: Does Kinship vs. Foster Care Better Promote Connectedness? A Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis.Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2021 Dec;24(4):833. doi: 10.1007/s10567-021-00363-3. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2021. PMID: 34309769 No abstract available.
Abstract
Internationally, there is an increasing trend toward placing children in kinship vs. foster care. Prior research suggests that children in kinship care fare better compared to children in foster care; however, the reasons for this remain unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the hypothesis that kinship care better preserves children's connectedness to caregiver, birth family, culture, and community; which, in turn, is associated with more optimal child outcomes. Thirty-one studies were reviewed that compared children aged 0-18 years in kinship care vs. foster care on levels of connectedness, three of which had outcomes that permitted meta-analysis. Findings indicated that children in kinship vs. foster care were more likely to feel connected to family in general; however, there was not a clear advantage for kinship vs. foster care for caregiver, birth parent, cultural, and community connectedness. While levels of connectedness were generally associated with more adaptive child outcomes for children in both kinship and foster care, no reviewed studies examined the hypothesis that children's connectedness may mediate the relationship between placement type and child well-being and placement outcomes. Results are discussed with respect to limitations and policy implications of the current evidence-base and the need for more rigorous research to help identify how to improve child well-being in home-based care.
Keywords: Attachment; Connectedness; Culture; Out-of-home care; Systematic review.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
References
Articles included in the review are marked with an asterisk
-
- *Altenhofen, S., Clyman, R., Little, C., Baker, M., & Biringen, Z. (2013). Attachment security in three‐year‐olds who entered substitute care in infancy. Infant Mental Health Journal, 34(5), 435-445. https://doi.org/10.1002/imhj.21401 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
-
- An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families Bill C.92 2019 (Cth). Retrieved from https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/bill/C-92/royal-assent
-
- Auditor General of Canada (2008). 2008 May Report of the Auditor General of Canada. Chapter 4: First Nations Child and Family Services Program—Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. http://www.oagbvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_200805_04_e_30700.html
-
- Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2020). Child protection Australia 2018–19. Child welfare series (No. 72). https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/3a25c195-e30a-4f10-a052-adbfd56d6d45/ai...
-
- Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (2005). Those who have, receive: The Matthew effect in early childhood intervention in the home environment. Review of Educational Research, 75(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001001 - DOI
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
