Impact of mentoring and befriending practice and interventions for children & young people

Systematic review
Completed Project

This project has now been completed. The linked publication can be viewed here:

Systematic review of the impact of mentoring and befriending practice and interventions for children & young people

Summary

This protocol summarises plans for a systematic review to explore and understand the different types of befriending and mentoring models that exist for children and young people up to the age of 25, who are care experienced, considered at risk of being placed in care, or at risk of poor developmental outcomes.

Who, what, why and how?

Mentoring and befriending interventions are widely used across the UK, and international evidence has found these programmes to be effective across a range of outcomes and relatively diverse programme samples. However, there are wide variations in UK practice on how befriending and mentoring are conceptualised and delivered, and programmes vary significantly in delivery, intended outcomes and social benefits. Despite support for mentoring and befriending approaches in UK policy, there remains a need to systematically synthesise the evidence base.

Foundations has commissioned Liverpool John Moores University to carry out a systematic review focused on mentoring and befriending models which exist for children and young people up to 25 years old, who are care experienced, considered at risk of being placed in care, or at risk of poor developmental outcomes. The review will consider how effective mentoring and befriending interventions are for different groups, identify practice and intervention components that lead to successful mentoring/befriending relationships, and identify barriers and facilitators to implementation.

The review will inform the development of a Practice Guide that will present the best-known evidence on mentoring and befriending interventions for children and young people.

Research Questions

  • RQ1: How effective are mentoring and befriending interventions on promoting good outcomes for “at risk” children and young people and/or those with care-experience?
  • RQ2: What are the different types of mentoring or befriending interventions/models, how are they defined, and which models are more or less effective for different populations of children and young people?
  • RQ3: What practice elements and intervention components are associated with successful befriending and mentoring relationships for children and young people?
  • RQ4: What are the enablers and barriers to successful implementation of effective mentoring and befriending interventions for children and young people?
  • RQ5: What are the views of children and young people (and parents/carers) about the acceptability and usefulness of different mentoring and befriending interventions?

Evaluation partners

Due Date

This project is due to be completed by November 2024.
SHARE

Systematic review protocol: impact of mentoring and befriending practice and interventions for children & young people

Download

Related Projects

Cost ratings:

Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.

Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.

Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.

Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.

Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.

Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.

Click here for more information.

Child Outcomes:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Evidence ratings:

Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.

Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.

Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.

Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.

Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.

Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.

Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.

Click here for more information.