Better evidence for a better world

Campbell evidence and gap maps

Coming soon – Campbell EGMs are a new evidence synthesis product. Plain language summaries of our EGMs will be published on this website. The interactive EGMs and full EGM reports will be available in our journal on the Wiley Online Library platform: click here.



Learn more about Campbell EGMs

Other EGMs

Campbell has produced maps on other topics, sometimes in partnership with other organisations.



See our other EGMs
Better evidence for a better world
Better evidence for a better world

Better evidence for a better world (169)

Additional Info

  • Authors Matthew Manning, Susanne Garvis, Christopher Fleming, Gabriel T. W. Wong
  • Published date 2017-01-20
  • Coordinating group(s) Education
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2017.1
  • Records available in English, Norwegian, Spanish, Turkish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Higher teacher qualifications are associated with higher quality early childhood education and care

    This review examines the empirical evidence on the relationship between teacher qualifications and the quality of the early childhood learning environment. Higher teacher qualifications are positively associated with higher quality in early childhood education and care.

    What is this review about?

    Poor quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) can be detrimental to the development of children as it could potentially lead to poor social, emotional, educational, health, economic and behavioural outcomes. The lack of consensus as to the strength of the relationship between teacher qualification and the quality of the early childhood learning environment has made it difficult for policy makers and educational practitioners alike, to settle on strategies that would enhance the learning outcomes for children in their early stages of education.

    This review examines the current empirical evidence on the correlation between teacher qualifications and the quality of early childhood learning environments.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the current empirical evidence on the correlation between teacher qualifications and the quality of the early childhood learning environments. The review summarises findings from 48 studies with 82 independent samples. Studies included children from pre-kindergarten and kindergarteners prior to elementary/primary school and centre-based providers.

    What studies are included?

    Included studies must have examined the relationship between teacher qualification and quality of the ECEC environment from 1980 to 2014, as well as permit the identification of the education program received by the lead teacher and provide a comparison between two or more groups of teachers with different educational qualifications. Furthermore, the studies had to have comparative designs and report either an overall quality scale or an environment rating scale.

    A total of 48 studies conducted with 82 independent samples were included in the review.

    What are the main results in this review?

    Overall, the results show that higher teacher qualifications are significantly correlated with higher quality early childhood education and care. The education level of the teachers or caregivers is positively correlated to overall ECEC qualities measured by the environment rating scale. There is also a positive correlation between teacher qualification and subscale ratings including program structure, language and reasoning.

    What do the findings in this review mean?

    The review shows a positive statistically significant association between teacher qualification and the quality of early childhood learning environment. This finding is not dependent on culture and context given that the evidence is from several countries.

    Mandating qualified teachers, i.e. with tertiary education, may lead to significant improvement for both process and structural quality within centre-based and home-based ECEC settings. However, the evidence is from correlational studies, so evidence is needed from studies with designs which can assess causal effects. Further research should also assess specific knowledge and skills teachers with higher qualifications have learned that enable them to complete their roles effectively.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies published until January 2015. This Campbell Systematic Review was published in January 2017.

  • Norwegian

    Click on 'Download PDF' in the right column to view the Norwegian translation of this plain language summary.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' in the right column to view the Spanish translation of this plain language summary.

  • Turkish

    Click on 'Download PDF' in the right column to view the Turkish translation of this plain language summary.

Additional Info

  • Authors Roy Carr-Hill, Caine Rolleston, Rebecca Schendel
  • Published date 2016-12-07
  • Coordinating group(s) International Development
  • Type of document Title Protocol Review Plain language summary
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2016.9

Additional Info

  • Authors Ezequiel Molina, Laura Carella, Ana Pacheco, Guillermo Cruces, Leonardo Gasparini
  • Published date 2016-11-15
  • Coordinating group(s) International Development
  • Type of document Title Protocol Review Plain language summary
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2016.8

Additional Info

  • Authors Vivian Andrea Welch, Shally Awasthi, Chisa Cumberbatch, Robert Fletcher, Jessie McGowan, Katelyn Merritt, Shari Krishnaratne, Salim Sohani, Peter Tugwell, Howard White, George A. Wells
  • Published date 2016-09-27
  • Coordinating group(s) International Development
  • Type of document Title Protocol Review Plain language summary
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2016.7

Additional Info

  • Authors Carolyn Graham, Michael West, Jessica Bourdon, Katherine J. Inge
  • Published date 2016-09-01
  • Coordinating group(s) Education
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2016.6
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Interventions for adults with traumatic brain injury may improve employment status

    Programs for adults who have suffered traumatic brain injury may improve employment status. All programs lead to employment, although no single program was more effective than the other programs.

    What is this review about?

    The unemployment rate in the USA for people who have suffered traumatic brain injury (TBI) was around 60% for 2001-10, compared to a national average of around 7%.

    Post-acute rehabilitation services – such as residential community reintegration programs, comprehensive day treatment programs, and community re-entry programs - focus on helping individuals adjust to ongoing impairments and to re-enter their communities, workplaces, and education. This review assesses the most effective type of intervention for returning individuals with TBI to work.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the effectiveness of vocational rehabilitation interventions to help adults with traumatic brain injury get competitive employment. Three randomized controlled trials are included: two of military populations in the USA and one of the civilian population in China (Hong Kong).

    What studies are included?

    Studies are included which assess interventions focused on assisting helping working-aged adults with TBI return to competitive employment, including self-employment. Participants must have been between 18 and 65 years of age, experienced a non-penetrating TBI, been engaged in either full-time or part-time employment at time of injury, and been unemployed or on medical leave at time of receipt of the intervention.The studies must have competitive employment as an outcome.

    Three randomized controlled trials (RCT) are included in the analysis, two studying US military personnel and one of civilians in China (Hong Kong). All three studies compared alternative programmes. One compared an intensive in-hospital program versus an at-home program. The second study compared the CogSMART program plus supported employment with supported employment alone. And in the third study the control group received psycho-educational training with the treatment group receiving the same content via a virtual reality-based training platform.

    How effective are the programmes?

    None of the programs were better at improving employment outcomes than the comparator program to which it was compared. The intensive in-hospital program was no better than the at-home alternative, CogSMART added no value to supported employment alone, and virtual reality-based training was no better than psycho-educational training. Comparison of employment before and after the interventions showed the interventions in the United States improved employment status. The intervention in China did not improve employment status.

    None of the studies reported secondary employment outcomes: hours worked and wages earned.

    It was not possible to conduct analysis of the relative effectiveness of different types of programme because of the small number of included studies.

    What are the implications of this review for policy makers and decision makers?

    These three studies have limited implications for practice and policy. No intervention was found to be more effective than any other. In two of the studies the populations were limited to military subjects, who present with significantly different challenges such as posttraumatic stress disorder.

    The comparator interventions of at-home training and supported employment appear promising.

    What are the research implications of this review?

    There is a need for more RCTs on return-to-work interventions for adults with TBI, preferably separating competitive employment from school attendance. Military interventions should be conducted with civilian samples in order to determine their effectiveness in the civilian population, including on populations outside the United States. A broader range of employment outcomes should be studied, with regular follow up at standard intervals (e.g., six months, 12 months, 18 months, etc.).

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The search was completed in 2015.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Additional Info

  • Authors Esther Coren, Rosa Hossain, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Brittany Bakker
  • Published date 2016-07-01
  • Coordinating group(s) International Development
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2016.5
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Lack of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reintegrate street-connected children

    There are a range of interventions to improve the integration and well-being of street-connected children, yet no studies measure integration, education or employment outcomes. There appears to be no effect on and mixed evidence for mental health. There may be reductions in substance abuse.

    What is this review about?

    Millions of street-connected children throughout the world are at risk of exploitation, violence, substance abuse, and health problems, and are not receiving skills-based education. Interventions to promote access to education, healthy and settled lifestyles, and reduction of risks are intended to give this group a better chance in life and prevent marginalization from society.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This review assessed the effectiveness of interventions for improving outcomes among street-connected children and young people, and for reducing some important health-related risks; and to improve access to and integration into society, education, and employment opportunities.

    What does the review study?

    This review investigates the effects of interventions for street-connected children to promote integration to the society, skills-based education, prospects of employment, and health risk education.

    What studies are included?

    Eligible study designs compare outcomes from interventions for street-connected children and young people aimed at reintegration, education, employment, improving health and/or harm reduction, and provision of shelter, versus a comparison group (e.g. shelter/drop-in service as usual). The review identified 13 studies evaluating 19 interventions. All studies were conducted in the USA except one (South Korea).

    What are the main results in this review?

    The outcome for integration was not measured in included studies. The same was the case for education and employment related outcomes - none of the included studies measured literacy, numeracy, or participation in education or skills-based employment. Several studies measured health-related outcomes.

    Five studies investigate the effect of interventions to encourage safe or reduced sexual activity (e.g. numbers of partners, frequency of sex, HIV knowledge, unprotected sex, condom use and rates of abstinence). The results are mixed, lacking enough evidence to support any of the interventions.

    Eight studies report outcomes of interventions promoting safe or reduced substance use. The outcomes used a variety of measures in different studies at various times making it difficult to get a clear overview. The overall effect was mixed; some studies report positive effect and the others reported negative or no effect. Three studies investigate the effect of family therapy on substance abuse and report improvements in some of the measures.

    Eight studies investigate the effect of therapeutic interventions to improve mental health (including self-esteem and depression) in street-connected kids. In general, there is no significant improvement in the intervention group compared to the control group. In some instances, both groups improved from the baseline. Finally, two studies investigate the effect of family-based approaches on family functioning. No differences were found between intervention and control conditions on most of the outcome measures used.

    What was the quality of the evidence?

    The quality of evidence was from low (i.e. for risk reduction in sexual activity and family therapy) to moderate (i.e. mental health improvement, harm reduction in substance abuse).

    What do the findings in this review mean?

    There is a dearth of evidence from controlled trials on interventions to improve integration of street-connected children and young adults into society and providing skills-based education. The evidence from health interventions aimed at

    engaging in safe sexual practices, and at improving mental health vary widely and are inconclusive as to their effectiveness. Some of the interventions aimed at reducing the risk of substance abuse may be effective. Further research in this area will be useful in understanding the effectiveness of these approaches and validating the effect of some of the interventions that are supported by moderate evidence.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for relevant studies until April 2015.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Additional Info

  • Authors Jane Barlow
  • Published date 2016-06-20
  • Type of document Policy brief
  • Library Image Library Image
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    Parenting programmes are provided to parents to enhance their knowledge, skills and understanding, and so improve both child and parent behavioural and psychological outcomes.

    These programmes are typically offered over eight to 12 weeks, for about one to two hours each week, although the range varies from as few as two sessions to as many as 20.

    Professor Barlow summarises evidence from six Campbell systematic reviews.

  • Spanish

    Efectos de programas de capacitación para padres: Una revisión de seis revisiones sistemáticas Campbell.

Additional Info

  • Authors Gary Ritter
  • Published date 2016-06-20
  • Type of document Policy brief
  • Library Image Library Image
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    This policy brief summarizes evidence from six Campbell systematic reviews of the effects of school-based interventions to improve student behavior. The interventions examined include cognitive behavioral therapy, counseling with at-risk students, and school-wide campaigns targeting destructive mind-sets.

    To access the six included systematic reviews in full, click here.
  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the policy brief in Spanish.

Additional Info

  • Authors Hugh Waddington
  • Published date 2016-06-08
  • Type of document Policy brief
  • Library Image Library Image
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    This Campbell policy brief summarizes evidence from five Campbell  systematic reviews which examine agricultural interventions including technology, skills and the regulatory environment. The impact of the following interventions is presented: land titling, training and technology, farmer field schools, payment for environmental services and decentralized forest management.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the policy brief in Spanish.

Additional Info

  • Authors Elizabeth Spier, Pia Britto, Terri Pigott, Eugene Roehlkapartain, Michael McCarthy, Yael Kidron, Mengli Song, Peter Scales, Dan Wagner, Julia Lane, Janis Glover
  • Published date 2016-03-23
  • Coordinating group(s) Education, International Development
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2016.4
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Limited evidence of effectiveness for home- or community-based child literacy programmes yet some approaches improve outcomes

    There is a wide range of models for out-of-school interventions to improve children’s literacy. Most of these models have not been subject to rigorous evaluation. Support to parents and peers has been largely ineffective in improving literacy, though it has worked in some places. Educational TV has positive effects.

    What did the review study?

    For a majority of the world’s children academic learning is neither occurring at expected rates nor supplying the basic foundational skills necessary to succeed in the 21st century. This review examines the availability of evidence and its findings about the effectiveness of interventions to improve parental, familial, and community support for children’s literacy development in developing countries.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review assesses the effectiveness of parental, familial, and community support for children’s literacy development in developing countries. The review summarises findings from 13 studies, of which 10 were used for meta-analysis.

    What studies are included?

    Included studies were published since 2003 with a test of an intervention involving parents, families, or community members with the goal of improving the literacy of children aged 3 to 12 years. The study design had to have a comparison group, and report literacy-related outcomes.

    Thirteen studies are included in the review, covering educational television, interventions that help parents learn how to support their children’s school readiness, and tutoring interventions delivered by peers.

    What were the main findings of the review?

    What models of reading and literacy learning programs have been implemented in homes and communities?

    Many models are widely used in low- and middle-income countries. These include the provision of libraries (standing or mobile) in many countries including Zimbabwe, Kenya, India and Venezuela; local-language publishing in, for example, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, and Zambia; literacy instruction outside schools including the teaching of literacy through religious instruction; the distribution e-readers in countries such as Ghana and Uganda; educational TV and radio; and supporting community members to educate children.

    What models of reading and literacy learning programs implemented in homes and communities in LMICs have empirical evidence regarding their level of effectiveness?

    There is no rigorous evidence of the effectiveness of most of the models being used by governments and NGOs around the world. The exceptions are educational TV and radio, and supporting community members to educate children.

    How effective are these models in improving children’s literacy outcomes?

    Overall, interventions for parent training and of child-to-child tutoring are not effective. Eight out of nine reported outcomes show no significant effects. However, there is considerable variation in the findings, so some approaches may be effective in some contexts.

    Educational television appears to improve literacy with frequent viewing, i.e. three to five times a week, over several months.

    What do the findings in this review mean?

    There are serious gaps in our knowledge. Programs that have worked in some settings should be replicated elsewhere so the contextual factors for success can be identified and understood. There is no evidence for most models used by governments and NGOs, none from one Latin America, and just one study presenting evidence of effects on children aged over seven.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies published until July 2013.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Page 5 of 17

Contact us

  • P.O. Box 222, Skøyen,
    N-0213 Oslo, Norway
  • (+47) 21 07 81 00
  • info@campbellcollaboration.org