Back

What works in educational interventions for teams caring for children and young people admitted to general acute paediatric wards for mental health? A systematic review.

Sanwo, O. D.; Rich, A.; Pomfret, I.; Downs, J.; Davis, S.; Dearden, J. R.; Buchanan, M.; Omar, L.; Griffin, A.; Hudson, L. D.

2025-10-28 medical education
10.1101/2025.10.27.25338855 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo systematically review educational interventions for staff working on acute paediatric wards aimed at improving the care of children and young people (CYP) admitted for mental health support. DesignWe conducted a systematic search of PubMed, ERIC, PsychInfo, and Web of Science from 2000 to September 2025 using terms related to healthcare professionals, training/education, mental health, and children/young people. PRISMA guidelines were followed. Interventions were classified using the Kirkpatrick model and the Behavioural Change Technique Taxonomy (BCT v1) to identify mechanisms underpinning effective change. ResultsWe found nine studies met inclusion criteria, across a range of teaching methodologies, and settings. Most interventions were designed and applied for nurses. Overall quality of evidence was poor. Although no single intervention could be recommended, analysis identified potentially useful components tailored to different learner needs, mapped through the Kirkpatrick and BCT frameworks. A notable gap was a lack of co-design with CYP and carers with lived experience and the absence of strategies to engage ambivalent or reluctant learners who might not attend educational interventions voluntarily. ConclusionsExisting educational interventions contain elements that may support behavioural and practice change among staff caring for CYP with mental health needs. However, future research should prioritise high-quality, framework-based evaluations developed through co-design with CYP and carers. Interventions should also address how to engage learners who may be reluctant to participate in training for this area of clinical practice.

Published in BMJ Paediatrics Open (predicted rank #20) · training set

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.