Interventions to promote child development in institutionalized children: a scoping review.
Vanessa Martins, Vitória da Silva Porto, Katherine Solís-Cordero and 5 others
PMID 41248301WHAT IT FOUND
Caregiver training and changes in institutional routines were mapped as the main ways to promote development in children living in care institutions.
Reported outcomes were positive, but the review cannot show which components worked.
Key findings
01The review included 17 studies of interventions delivered to caregivers of institutionalized children.
02Interventions included caregiver training and training combined with structural changes such as smaller groups, consistent primary caregivers, and protected family time.
03Reported outcomes included improved caregiver-child interaction and children's development, but missing intervention details limit replication and effectiveness assessment.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This was a scoping review, not a trial or meta-analysis, so it maps what was done rather than proving a specific intervention works. The included studies used different designs and settings, and some may lack adequate scientific rigor. Many papers did not describe materials, dose, or whether training was group or individual, so clinicians cannot tell what to copy. The reported positive outcomes came from studies that often combined training with structural changes, so the effect of any single component cannot be separated. The search may have missed some studies, and the final set was small. The review excluded foster-family care, so it does not apply to children living with families.
Declared interests
Financial support: Fundo de Apoio ao Ensino, Pesquisa e Extensão da Universidade Estadual de Campinas.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that caregiver training improves child development. The review only maps studies that reported positive outcomes; the interventions varied, often included structural changes, and lacked enough detail to replicate or isolate what worked.