Please note this application is under active development. If you spot any errors or something isn't working, please contact us at evidence.service@wales.nhs.uk.
Systematic Review
To assess the effectiveness of the Families and Schools Together (FAST) programme in improving outcomes among children and their families.
The reviewers identified 10 completed randomised controlled trials (RCTs), most of which were relatively recent (2007 or later) and were conducted with at least some involvement from the intervention developer or the FAST organisation. Nine of the 10 trials were from the USA; the other was from the UK. Children were young (five to nine years old; mean age approximately six years), and therefore, whilst not so named in the reports, evaluations consisted of what is sometimes referred to as 'Kids FAST' and sometimes 'Elementary Level FAST'). Among the USA‐based studies, at least 62% of participants were members of a racial/ethnic minority group (most commonly, African American or Latino). FAST was usually delivered in schools after the school day. Trials lasted about eight weeks and usually examined the effects of FAST relative to no additional intervention. Most studies were funded by agencies in the US federal government. The certainty of evidence in the included studies was judged to be moderate or low for the main review outcomes. Failure to include all families in outcome analyses (attrition) and possible bias in recruitment of families into the trials were the main limitations in the evidence.
Over 9000 children and their families were included in at least one meta‐analysis. The following results relate to meta‐analyses of data at long‐term follow‐up.
Primary outcomes: Four studies (approximately 6276 children) assessed child school performance at long‐term follow‐up. The effect size was very small, and the CI did not include effects that, if real, suggest possibly important positive or negative effects if viewed from an individual perspective [Standard mean difference (SMD) ‐0.02, 95% Confidence interval (CI) ‐0.11 to 0.08]. We assessed the certainty of evidence for this outcome as moderate. No studies assessed child adverse events, parental substance use, or parental stress.
Secondary outcomes: Parent reports of child internalising behaviour (SMD ‐0.03, 95% CI ‐0.11 to 0.17; 4 RCTs, approximately 908 children; low‐certainty evidence) and family relationships (SMD 0.08, 95% CI ‐0.03 to 0.19; 4 RCTs, approximately 2569 children; moderate‐certainty evidence) also yielded CIs that did not include effects that, if real, suggest possibly important positive or negative effects.
The CI for parent reports of child externalising behaviour, however, did include effects that, if real, were possibly large enough to be important (SMD ‐0.19, 95% CI ‐0.32 to ‐0.05; 4 RCTs, approximately 754 children; low‐certainty evidence).
The authors conclude that given these results, it is hard to support the assertion that assignment to FAST is associated with important positive outcomes for children and their parents.