Taking stock of psychosocial rehabilitation in children and adolescents: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

The final review included only 18 empirical studies, and only 4 studies had enough data for the meta-analysis. Most included studies had no control group, so improvement after the program could be due to time, maturation, or other care. The studies covered many different conditions, settings, interventions, outcomes, and designs, so the findings are hard to compare. Study quality was mediocre on average, and five studies had sample sizes of 50 participants or fewer. The quality-of-life subgroup was underpowered, with wide confidence intervals and a non-significant result. The review excluded psychiatric-only programs, acute or primary care programs, and studies focused on professionals or services, so it does not cover all pediatric rehabilitation contexts. The pooled effect covers whole rehabilitation programs, not individual components, so the contribution of any single element cannot be separated. Publication-bias tests were non-significant but had limited power, and few studies meaningfully reported access, equity, or cultural implementation.

The authors declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication, and open access funding was provided by the University of Vienna.

Do not conclude that psychosocial rehabilitation programs are proven effective for children with physical conditions. The positive pooled effect came from only 4 uncontrolled studies, and the quality-of-life subgroup was not significant.