Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Search Search PubMed

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

Interventions to improve school attendance: a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Poor school attendance adversely affects youth behaviour and health trajectories. We reviewed and synthesised the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions to improve school attendance. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis updates the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) 2022 review on attendance interventions. We synthesised RCT data to inform recommendations. We searched ERIC (via EBSCOhost), PsycINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar for publications 1 January 2020-16 October 2024 to identify attendance interventions delivered to students, parents/guardians or school staff. We also extracted and analysed RCTs identified in the EEF review. Two reviewers independently extracted data from published articles and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, GRADE assessment). We synthesised and meta-analysed data per our protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42024610037). RESULTS: We screened 9366 titles and abstracts and included 61 articles (2000-2024): 43 articles published 2020-2024 plus 18 articles from the previous review (2000-2020), reporting 57 trials of 54 interventions. Pooled mean difference and 95% CIs for days of school attended was 0.63 (-0.34 to 1.61), I2=64.0%, low certainty, for mentoring interventions and 0.43 (0.10 to 0.76), I2=91.9%, moderate certainty, for parental engagement interventions. Other intervention areas including targeted approaches, behavioural programmes and social-emotional interventions had smaller, heterogeneous evidence bases. Risk of bias was moderate-to-low in most trials. CONCLUSION: A large range of interventions exist to address the diverse causes of school absence. Parental engagement demonstrated a small positive effect on attendance, particularly among younger age groups. Most trials were from the USA; implementation and evaluation in other countries will inform effectiveness.

CHILD↗
PubMed2026

Impact of climate change on pediatric health outcomes.

Climate change has become one of the most critical health issues globally in the twenty-first century with children bearing the disproportionate burden of the burden since they are more vulnerable than adults because of their physiological, behavioral, and developmental capacities. It is a systematic review that rates the evidence of the relationship between climatic exposures such as heat, air-pollution, and extreme weather events and pediatric health outcomes. The number of peer-reviewed studies involved was 23 published in 2000-2025, which represented different geographic areas and study designs and assessed acute and chronic health outcomes. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the ROBINS-I tool were used to evaluate the methodological quality, and the majority of the studies had low to moderate risks of bias. The narrative synthesis shows that there are always links between air pollutants especially PM2.5, NO2 and O3 and respiratory morbidity, prevalence of asthma and hospitalization of children. Amplified temperatures as well as heat waves were associated with increased cases of heat illness, dehydration, and febrile state in infants and young children. There were elevated cases of diarrheal and vector-related infections, especially in low-resource settings, which were linked to extreme weather events especially floods. Although the overall results were similar, significant differences in the regions and methods were found, and low-income countries show little evidence. In addition, exposures as analyzed in most studies were usually considered individually, which may have underestimated the cumulative or compound climate risks.

Humans↗