Skip to main content
Download PDF

Mental disorders among adults formerly in out-of-home care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies

European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

While children and adolescents placed in child welfare or juvenile justice out-of-home care show higher prevalence rates of mental disorders compared to the general population, it remains unclear whether this pattern persists into adulthood. A quantitative synthesis of existing studies is lacking. The aim of this meta-analysis was to estimate the prevalence rates for mental disorders among adults with a foster or residential child welfare or juvenile justice care history, comparing them where possible to rates among the general population. PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and Web of Science were systematically searched for epidemiological studies published up to 28 October 2020. Nineteen studies, totaling 604,257 participants, met our inclusion criteria. Random-effects models were used for prevalence rates and odds ratios (OR) of mental disorders, and study quality was rated. A prevalence rate of 30% [95% CI (23.36, 37.36)] for any mental disorder in adults with a child welfare care history was found (3–17% for specific disorders). A prevalence rate of 45% [95% CI (42.38, 47.38)] for any mental disorder was found in adults with a juvenile justice care history (6–66% for specific disorders). For out-of-home placement history, adult mental disorders were significantly higher than in the general population (OR = 1.33–2.76). Studies differed in terms of methodology and the disorder groups considered, so heterogeneity between effect sizes ranged from low to high. Our findings suggest that the high risk that mental health issues will persist in adults with an out-of-home placement history needs to be taken seriously in the transition from adolescence to adulthood. The care systems involved need to collaborate and to be aware of these risks.

Introduction

Millions of children and adolescents worldwide are placed in out-of-home care, with rates ranging from approximately 0.5–1% between countries [1, 2]. The prevalence of mental disorders is high in these children and adolescents [3, 4], as they face various challenges related to mental disorders in the transition period from leaving care to adulthood (e.g., homelessness, adult mental disorders, or unemployment; [5,6,7]). To date, the extent of the association between placement in childhood out-of-home care and the occurrence of adult mental disorders remains unclear. Thus, the aim of our systematic review and meta-analysis is to provide an overview of prevalence rates for mental disorders (specific and overall) among adults previously in child welfare or juvenile justice out-of-home care. These findings will inform researchers and professionals alike about the burden of mental health diagnoses in this highly vulnerable population.

Children and adolescents in out-of-home care can generally be placed there either by child welfare (civil law) or juvenile justice (criminal law) authorities. The quality of structures and processes in different care settings within and across child welfare and juvenile justice systems varies substantially between countries with different socioeconomic opportunities and policies [8,9,10,11]. In general, adolescent offenders are marked by highly elevated rates of trauma, psychopathology, and other psychosocial problems [12, 13], while adolescents in child welfare placements often show delinquent behavior in addition to similarly elevated rates of psychosocial treatment needs [3, 14]. A substantial number of child welfare adolescents thus cross over to the juvenile justice system or vice versa, meaning that these adolescents can be involved in both care systems [15, 16]. These crossover adolescents show higher rates of psychopathology, greater placement instability, and penetrate deeper into both systems, making it particularly important for professionals to reach across systems of care to support at-risk individuals [17]. Although children and adolescents involved with child welfare or juvenile justice authorities overlap and experience similarly high levels of psychosocial burden and childhood adversities [15], combining child welfare and juvenile justice samples may obscure significant differences in the prevalence rates of mental disorders. Therefore, for child welfare placement histories, we distinguish between foster care and residential care; and for residential care histories, we distinguish between child welfare placements and juvenile justice placements.

A previous meta-analysis of studies conducted in Europe and the United States showed that 49% (including present and lifetime diagnoses) of children and adolescents in the child welfare system (including residential and foster care settings) met the criteria for at least one present mental disorder [3]. These rates ranged from 27% for disruptive disorders to 4% for post-traumatic stress disorders [3]. Furthermore, prevalence rates can vary between different care settings [18, 19]. For example, a rate of 74% for any lifetime mental disorder was found in a study examining adolescents in Swiss residential care settings [20], compared with the 51% for any lifetime mental disorder reported in a sample of foster adolescents in Norway [21]. Among juvenile justice samples, a prevalence rate of 70% for any mental disorder (including present and lifetime diagnoses) was found, with rates ranging from 45% for conduct disorders to 1% for psychotic disorders (see the literature review of Colins et al. [22]). A recent meta-analytic study of adolescents in juvenile detention and correctional facilities reported high present and lifetime prevalence rates, ranging from 3% for psychotic disorders to 63% for conduct disorders [4]. In comparison, a meta-analysis examining the general adolescent population internationally estimated a combined present and lifetime prevalence rate of 13% for any mental disorder [3, 4, 23]. In addition, previous meta-analyses also showed that a stable foster or residential care placement can lower psychosocial burden and be protective against high levels of psychopathology among high-risk children [24, 25]. Furthermore, foster care showed slightly better outcomes for behavioral problems and social and cognitive skills compared to institutionalization (i.e., group care), and no differences between care settings were found when the institutional treatments were evidence-based [26]. While epidemiological data for childhood and adolescence allow robust conclusions, the long-term perspective remains unclear, and an up-to-date meta-analytic summary of epidemiological studies investigating the occurrence of mental disorders in adults with a history of out-of-home placement is lacking.

From a developmental perspective, monitoring the mental state of children and adolescents in child welfare or juvenile justice care placements is crucial, as disorders that manifest in childhood or early in life carry a high risk of persisting into adulthood and severely influencing long-term quality of life and functionality [27, 28]. Young adulthood in particular can be a vulnerable period where the development and chronicity of mental disorders are concerned [29, 30]. Yet to date, only a few studies of representative general population samples have examined the course of mental disorders from childhood to adulthood. Overall, these studies reported high levels of persistence of mental disorders into adulthood, especially for individuals with numerous risk factors [27, 31,32,33,34]. Similarly, prospective and retrospective studies have emphasized that adolescents who were placed within the juvenile justice system suffer from multiple mental health problems in young adulthood [35,36,37,38]. Furthermore, primary studies have shown that the challenging transition from foster or residential care to an independent adult life is associated with poor mental health for such emerging adults [7, 39, 40]. Longitudinal studies with transition-aged young adults from care have focused on various outcomes of psychosocial functioning and general mental health [39, 41], and a literature review has shown that the level of psychopathology among young adults who aged out of the child welfare system was high overall [42].

In summary, previous meta-analyses have examined the prevalence or development of mental health disorders from childhood through adolescence among individuals placed in care by either the child welfare [25, 41, 43] or the juvenile justice system [4, 22]. However, to the best of our knowledge, no systematic review or meta-analysis has investigated the burden of mental disorder among the high-risk sample of adults with a history of out-of-home care. The aim of our systematic review with a meta-analysis is to provide a comprehensive overview of the prevalence rates of mental disorders among adults formerly in out-of-home care in existing studies, distinguishing between child welfare foster or residential care on the one hand and juvenile justice residential care settings on the other. Furthermore, where possible, the rates of mental disorders will be compared with the occurrence of mental disorders in available control groups. An overview of mental disorders among adults formerly in out-of-home care has the potential to inform the development of targeted preventive interventions for adult mental disorders in individuals with a history in different out-of-home care settings.

Methods

The present systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines (see Supplementary Content 1; [44]). The review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; registration number: CRD42019141330); deviations of the final review from the initial protocol are explained in Supplementary Content 2. The advice of a research librarian was obtained for the literature search.

Search strategy and study selection

The literature searches were conducted in the electronic databases PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and Web of Science on 15 November 2019 and updated on 28 October 2020. We used keywords and Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms to identify peer-reviewed journal articles reporting prevalence rates of mental disorders among adults with a foster or residential care history, including articles on juvenile justice placements. We did not set any time limitation for published articles. The search terms used in the individual databases are presented in Supplementary Content 3.

Our inclusion criteria for articles were that they be English-language, peer-reviewed case–control or cohort studies (both prospective and retrospective), reporting prevalence rates for mental disorders in adults with a history of foster care or residential care in childhood or adolescence. If multiple time periods for prevalence rates of diagnoses were reported, we chose the present or 1-year prevalence rates; lifetime prevalence rates were only included if they were the only rates reported and subgroup analyses allowed childhood prevalences to be excluded. We excluded reports, comments, letters, gray literature, intervention studies, and reviews, as well as qualitative studies.

The screening and selection processes were conducted independently by two authors (SS and LJ) using Covidence, an online screening and data extraction tool based on Cochrane reviews (https://www.covidence.org/home).

Outcome measures and data extraction

Our primary outcome was the presence or absence of mental disorders. Mental disorders were defined following either the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) or Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Mental disorders were assessed by means of hospital reports, (semi-)structured interviews (e.g., Composite International Diagnostic Interview [CIDI]), and well-validated screening scales (e.g., the General Health Questionnaire [GHQ] and the Malaise Inventory; [45, 46]). Registry data from official hospital reports or surveys of mental disorder diagnoses were also included. For the calculation of prevalence rates, we extracted the number of cases (i.e., study participants with mental disorders) and non-cases (i.e., study participants without a mental disorder) from all studies identified by the systematic review. For the calculation of odds ratios (OR), we used the subset of studies that included control groups. We extracted the 2 × 2 cross-tabulation data for number of cases and non-cases for the control group as well (i.e., adults without an out-of-home care history).

Data were extracted independently by two authors (SS and DdH). The discrepancies in author coding assignments were discussed and resolved by consensus. Extracted data included demographic information about the sample (i.e., sample size, gender, and age), type of care setting in child welfare (i.e., foster care, kinship care, residential care, or adoption) and juvenile justice (i.e., juvenile detention facility or correctional facility) systems, age at entry into care (in years), duration of care (in months or years), location (i.e., United States, Europe, Oceania, Africa, or Asia), study design (i.e., prospective or retrospective), dropout rates (in %), outcome measures (i.e., the diagnostic instrument), time period of prevalence (i.e., present, 1-year, or lifetime), and outcomes (i.e., mental disorder groups). We included five categorical variables (i.e., type of care setting in child welfare and juvenile justice contexts, location, study design, outcome measure, and time period of prevalence) as potential moderators in our subgroup analyses. In the case of studies with more than one follow-up assessment, we extracted data for the last available assessment in adulthood. The data extracted from six studies were incomplete; after repeated attempts to obtain the full data, we received them from the two authors [47, 48] and were able to include their two studies in our study. We were unable to obtain full data from the other four studies [49,50,51,52], which were, therefore, excluded from our study.

Methodological quality assessment

Two authors (SS and DdH) independently rated the methodological quality of the included studies on the basis of the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS; [53]). This tool was developed for the quality assessment of non-randomized studies and evaluates them in three broad domains: selection of the study groups (rated with the “Representativeness of the Exposed Cohort”, “Selection of the Non-Exposed Cohort”, “Ascertainment of Exposure”, and “Demonstration that Outcome of Interest Was Not Present at Start of Study” criteria), comparability of the cohort groups (rated with the “Comparability of Cohorts on the Basis of the Design or Analysis” criterion), and ascertainment of the exposure or outcome of interest for case–control or control studies, respectively (rated with the “Assessment of Outcome”, “Was Follow-Up Long Enough for Outcomes to Occur”, and “Adequacy of Follow-Up of Cohorts” criteria). To rate the comparability of study cohort groups, the NOS requires one or two key control variables to be predetermined. We included age and/or gender as the first control variable(s), and information on socioeconomic status as a further control variable. A previous study has shown higher rates of boys in out-of-home care than girls, different rates of mental disorders depending on age, and that out-of-home placed individuals originated from families with lower socioeconomic backgrounds compared to the general population [54]. If two of the predefined control variables were met, the “Comparability of Cohorts on the Basis of the Design or Analysis” criterion was scored with 2 points.

Each study was rated in terms of eight criteria (seven criteria were scored 0 or 1, and one criterion was scored 0, 1, or 2), resulting in a maximum score of 9 for each study. The final quality ratings were based on consensus between the two authors (SS and DdH) after discrepancies in the coding assignments were discussed and resolved. The quality of a study was assessed as high when seven to nine criteria were met, moderate when four to six criteria were met, and low when three or fewer criteria were met.

Statistical analyses

First, the prevalence rates of mental disorders (both any and specific disorders) were calculated by dividing the number of adults with a mental disorder by the full sample size of adults with an out-of-home placement history. Second, ORs for the individual disorders were calculated based on the percentage of all individuals with a mental disorder among the total sample and among those with foster or residential care histories (child welfare or juvenile justice placements) as well as control groups.

For the meta-analytic aggregation of effect sizes, we chose random-effects models rather than a fixed-effect model because we assumed significant variability in clinical assessment and methodology between the studies included [55]. Between-study heterogeneity of results was assessed by calculating the Q statistic, τ2, and I2. τ2 offers an estimate of the variance between true effect sizes and is not sensitive to sample size, in contrast to I2 [56, 57]. I2 is a transformation of Q that indicates the proportion of observed variance that can be attributed to heterogeneity rather than to sampling error [58]. In general, this number can be interpreted as follows: a percentage of 25% is assumed to indicate low, 50% moderate, and 75% high heterogeneity [59].

Subgroup analyses were conducted for five categorical moderators (i.e., type of care setting in child welfare and juvenile justice contexts, location, study design, outcome measure, and time period of prevalence) for the specific disorder groups. Subgroup analyses for individual disorders were conducted if more than 10 studies could be included in them [55]. Sensitivity analyses to reduce heterogeneity were conducted for prevalence rates and ORs by excluding outlier studies, defined as studies falling outside the total confidence interval range of the respective disorder group. Publication bias was assessed visually by means of funnel plots. The “meta” package in R was used for all analyses and plots (version 4.0.2; [60]). We used a 2-sided p < .05 to indicate statistical significance.

Results

Characteristics of included studies

In total, the systematic search of electronic databases revealed 3,580 potentially relevant articles (see Fig. 1 for the flowchart of study inclusion). The screening and full-text assessment resulted in 19 peer-reviewed journal articles with case–control and cohort studies, with a total sample of 604,257 participants. For a complete list and general study characteristics, see Table 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart of study inclusion

Full size image
Table 1 Characteristics of included studies (k = 19)
Full size table

Most studies were prospective and examined mental disorders among adults with a child welfare out-of-home care placement history (Table 1). Four studies were retrospective, and four studies examined mental disorders among adults with a juvenile justice residential care history. Seven studies investigated samples with foster care histories, one study included an additional sample with a residential child welfare care history, and nine studies included mixed samples of foster and residential child welfare care histories. Regarding exposure to child welfare out-of-home care, six studies reported that entry into care was in childhood (age ranged from 2 to 12 years across these studies), three studies reported that entry into care was in adolescence (age ranged from 13 to 17 years), and six studies did not provide information on age at entry into child welfare care. For juvenile justice out-of-home care, three studies reported that entry into care ranged from childhood to adolescence (age ranged from 10 to 17 years across these studies); only one study did not provide any information on age at entry into juvenile justice out-of-home care. The average time in child welfare out-of-home care ranged from 1 month to 15 years across six studies; nine studies did not provide any information on duration of care. The average duration of care in juvenile justice out-of-home care ranged from 9 to 17 months across two of our included studies; two studies did not provide any information on the duration of juvenile justice care. Lastly, dropout rates ranging from 1.95 to 42.3% were reported across ten studies on child welfare placement histories; the other five studies on child welfare placement histories, on the other hand, did not report dropout rates. The dropout rates in studies on juvenile justice placement histories ranged from 12 to 49.7% across three of the included studies; only one study did not provide any information on the dropout rate of the study sample.

For three studies, which reported gender-specific prevalence rates only [61,62,63], we calculated the combined prevalence across these subsamples in our meta-analyses [56]. We included two studies that reported only lifetime prevalence rates [48, 64], because we were able to control for childhood prevalences by conducting subgroup analyses. Finally, eight studies reported prevalence rates for the general population as a control group in addition to the prevalences in the exposed group of adults with an out-of-home placement history [61, 62, 64,65,66,67,68,69].

Quality of studies included

The total quality scores for eligible studies ranged from 3 (k = 1) to 8 (k = 5) (see Table 2). Eleven studies were of moderate quality, seven studies of high quality, and only one study of low quality. All studies met the “Was Follow-Up Long Enough for Outcomes to Occur” quality criterion in the outcome dimension, whereas only three studies met the “Demonstration that Outcome of Interest Was Not Present at Start of Study” in the selection dimension.

Table 2 Quality assessment of studies included (k = 19) with the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Scale
Full size table

Prevalence rates of mental disorders

Child welfare placement history

The pooled prevalence rate for any mental disorder in adults with a foster or residential care history based on child welfare placement was 29.89 [95% CI (23.36, 37.36); see Table 3]. The pooled prevalence rates for the specific disorder groups ranged from 3.32% to 17.16% across all studies, with psychotic disorders showing the lowest and depressive disorders the highest rates. Moderate to high between-study heterogeneity was found for the specific disorder groups (all p < 0.05; Table 3). A visual overview of the prevalence rates found in individual studies is provided in the forest plot in Supplementary Fig. 1.

Table 3 Random-effects model meta-analyses for prevalence rates among adults formerly in out-of-home care
Full size table

Our sensitivity analyses for exploring potential sources of between-study heterogeneity revealed that excluding five outlier studies [48, 63, 68,69,70] in the any mental disorder group and two outlier studies [48, 66] in the depressive disorders group did not change the prevalence rates or the heterogeneities substantially (Table 3). Excluding two outlier studies [62, 68] in the substance-use disorders group did increase the prevalence rate slightly, from 10.39% to 10.42%, and revealed a low and non-significant heterogeneity of 0.00%.

The asymmetry in the funnel plots for any mental disorder, depressive disorders, substance-use disorders, and anxiety disorders indicates a possible risk of overestimating the prevalence rates in this meta-analysis (see Supplementary Fig. 2). The information depicted in the funnel plots indicates that studies with lower prevalence rates might be missing from the pool of studies included. Such a pattern is typically explained by the presence of publication bias, meaning that studies with smaller and possibly non-significant prevalence rates are more likely to remain unpublished compared to studies with larger and significant findings. Our results, which summarize only the publicly available evidence, might suggest a larger prevalence rate than would be the case if all evidence, including unpublished findings, had been analyzed. However, this bias should be interpreted carefully due the small number of studies in our analysis [55].

Table 4 provides information on the subgroup analyses for the child welfare history sample. Subgroup analyses for any mental disorder showed higher prevalence rates in studies with a kinship care setting than in studies with other child welfare care settings (p = .02); in studies using the GHQ as an outcome measure than in studies using other measures (p < .001); in studies of present prevalence diagnoses than in studies with other time periods of prevalence (p = 0.03); and in studies of the United States than in studies of other locations (p = .03). Subgroup analyses for depressive disorders indicated higher prevalence rates in studies using a survey as an outcome measure than in studies using other measures (p < .001); in studies of lifetime prevalence diagnoses than in studies with other time periods of prevalence (p < .001); in retrospective studies than in prospective studies (p < .001); and in studies of the United States than in studies of Europe (p < .001).

Table 4 Subgroup analyses of prevalence rates stratified by disorder among adults with residential or foster care placement histories
Full size table

Juvenile justice placement history

The study of Abram et al. [71] reported a prevalence rate of 44.87 [95% CI (42.38, 47.38)] for any mental disorder in adults with a juvenile justice placement history (see Table 3). Pooled prevalence rates for the different mental disorders varied between 6% and 66%, whereas the rate of conduct disorders was the highest and the rates of both post-traumatic stress disorders and psychotic disorders were the lowest. Moderate heterogeneity was found for three studies of depressive disorders, and high heterogeneity was found for three studies of substance-use disorders. A visual overview of the prevalence rates found in individual studies is provided in the forest plot in Supplementary Fig. 3.

Reviewing individual studies that examined depressive disorders for potential sources of heterogeneity, Heard-Garris et al. [64] reported lower prevalence rates compared with the studies of Ramchand et al. [72] and Verbruggen et al. [73]. Heard-Garris et al. [64] used a retrospective study design, in contrast to the other, prospective studies; assessed lifetime rather than 1-year prevalence rates; and used a survey rather than other measures (see Table 1). Comparing the individual studies of substance-use disorders for sources of heterogeneity, Abram et al. [71] and Ramchand et al. [72] reported higher prevalence rates compared with the Verbruggen et al. [73] study. Both Abram et al. [71] and Ramchand et al. [72] examined samples from detention center settings, rather than a sample from a judicial treatment institution, and were conducted in the United States rather than Europe.

There was an indication of asymmetry in the funnel plot for depressive disorders and substance-use disorders, pointing to a possible risk of overestimating the prevalence rates in our meta-analysis due to the assumed presence of unpublished studies (i.e., publication bias). The small number of studies limits the interpretability of these results (see Supplementary Fig. 4).

Odds for mental disorders

Child welfare placement history

Adults with a foster or residential care history resulting from child welfare placement showed significantly higher rates of any mental disorder [OR = 1.56, 95% CI (1.14, 2.13), p = .0061] compared with the general population (see Table 5). For the specific disorders, prevalence rates for depressive disorders [OR = 1.98, 95% CI (1.28, 2.89), p = .002], substance-use disorders [OR = 1.33, 95% CI (1.16, 1.91), p < .001], and anxiety disorders [OR = 1.75; 95% CI (1.20, 2.56), p = .004] were higher among adults with a foster or residential care history in a child welfare context than in the general population. Low to high heterogeneity was found for the various disorder groups. A visual overview of ORs found for individual studies is provided in the forest plot in Supplementary Fig. 5.

Table 5 Random-effects model meta-analyses for the odds of mental disorders among adults formerly in out-of-home care
Full size table

To minimize heterogeneity between the prevalence rates of included studies, one outlier study [65] in the depressive disorders group was excluded; this did not change the OR substantially but reduced the heterogeneity (from 93.60% to 0.00%; Table 5). There was an indication of asymmetry in the funnel plot for any mental disorder, depressive disorders, and anxiety disorders, pointing to a possible risk of overestimating the prevalence rates in this meta-analysis due to unpublished studies (i.e., publication bias; see Supplementary Fig. 6).

Juvenile justice placement history

Only the study of Heard-Garris et al. [64] compared prevalence rates of mental disorders in adults with a juvenile justice residential care history and the general population as a control group (Table 5). Adults with a juvenile justice residential care history reported significantly higher rates of depressive disorders [OR = 1.54; 95% CI (1.23, 1.91), p < .001] and post-traumatic stress disorders [OR = 2.76; 95% CI (1.87, 4.09), p < .001] than the general population (Table 5).

Discussion

The aim of our meta-analytic review was to summarize the available evidence on the occurrence of mental disorders among adults previously in out-of-home care, and, where possible, to compare these rates with the occurrence of mental disorders in control groups.

Our meta-analysis revealed a pooled prevalence rate of 30% for any mental disorder in adults with a foster or residential child welfare placement history. This figure is consistent with the findings of previous studies regarding mental health in young adults leaving out-of-home care [6, 7, 41]. However, the rate is highly elevated compared to the previously calculated prevalence rate of 18% for any mental disorder in meta-analyses examining the general adult population [27, 74]. This observation reflects the fact that our results are based on studies that used a general population control group in addition to the exposed group, and which showed an increased risk of the occurrence of mental disorders in adults with a history of out-of-home placement compared to adults in the general population.

Our analyses also showed that the prevalence rate for any mental disorder varied largely across individual studies, with high heterogeneity in our random-effects model. This may be due to the fact that the studies subsumed various specific mental disorders under one general mental disorder measure, mixing together disorders that are known to have different general prevalences in and of themselves. Nonetheless, the pooled prevalence rate of 30% for any mental disorder among adults with a child welfare placement history is lower than the rate of 49% for any mental disorder reported in a previous meta-analysis examining mental disorders during child welfare system involvement [3].

Our stratified analyses, which examined pooled prevalence rates of specific disorders for adults with a child welfare placement history, showed that these rates varied largely, between 3% for psychotic disorders and 17% for depressive disorders. The distribution of the rates across individual disorders is similar to the distribution found in previous meta-analyses and primary studies examining mental disorders within samples from child welfare out-of-home care [3, 21, 75]. Furthermore, studies examining various mental disorders among adults with a child welfare placement history have shown almost a twofold increase in the risk of depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and substance-use disorders compared with the general population.

Finally, our meta-analysis showed a pooled prevalence rate of 45% for any mental disorder in adults with a juvenile justice placement history. The pooled prevalence for specific disorders in this sample again varied largely, between 6% for post-traumatic stress disorders and 66% for conduct disorders. These rates are within the range of prevalence rates for mental disorders obtained in previous prospective studies of adults with a juvenile justice placement history [35, 38]. Our random-effects models revealed moderate heterogeneity for depressive disorders and high heterogeneity for substance-use disorders, which is in line with the heterogeneity reported in a previous meta-analysis of mental disorders among adolescents in correctional facilities [4]. We were not able to conduct subgroup analyses for this sample because we were only able to include four studies examining mental disorders among adults with a juvenile justice placement history in our study [64, 71,72,73].

Our meta-analyses revealed that adults formerly in out-of-home care are overall more likely to show mental disorders compared with the general adult population, regardless of setting. However, results varied across individual studies and indicated low to high heterogeneity between effect size estimates, mainly due to methodological differences between studies (i.e., setting of care, time period of prevalence, and study design). Due to various moderator variables, our meta-analysis found comparable levels of heterogeneity to those in previous meta-analyses of both child welfare and juvenile justice samples [3, 4].

The elevated rates of mental disorders among adults previously in out-of-home care may be explained by the use of samples in the stage of young adulthood (18–25 years) in eight studies [63, 65, 67, 69, 70, 72, 76, 77], compared with the highest mean age of 72 years in the study sample of Fernandez et al. [78]. For example, there was a variation in the age distribution (18–72 years) of samples between individual studies: as young adults may face various challenges at transition to adulthood, they might be at higher risk of mental disorders compared with older adults [30], which might mean that our estimated prevalence rates are higher than is actually the case. Although mental health services can offer protective benefits, the use of such services tends to decline as young people leave care [7]. Presumably, young adults leaving care appreciate their freedom and may be reluctant to participate in any kind of foster or residential care—including mental health services—anymore [79]. On the other hand, however, the transition to adulthood might make it difficult for young adults to navigate new healthcare systems where they have to look after themselves after leaving care all of a sudden. However, more studies with greater variation in the age of previously out-of-home placed samples are needed to examine the effect of age on the prevalence estimates.

One of the main issues in research on the effects of child welfare and juvenile justice care involvement to date is the lack of effective control groups with comparable risk factors. A comparison of long-term trajectories between samples with a child welfare or juvenile justice placement history and normative samples should be interpreted cautiously, since samples with out-of-home placement histories are populations disadvantaged and marginalized by a disproportionate concentration of cumulative childhood risk factors for various mental disorders. Our meta-analysis has shown that the odds for mental disorders among adults with an out-of-home care history are lower than in the meta-analysis of Hughes et al. [80], which revealed ORs ranging from 3.70 for anxiety to 10.22 for problematic drug use in adults with a high burden of cumulative childhood adversities. In addition, the lower rates of mental disorders in adulthood than those found in previous reviews of samples from these groups [3, 4] might be explained by the fact that the transition period into adulthood is accompanied by strengthening and protective factors originating in the child welfare or juvenile justice care systems. To make conclusive statements about the odds of mental disorders among child welfare and juvenile justice samples, future studies, including samples with levels of psychosocial burden comparable to those of adults with out-of-home care histories, are needed.

Implications

As previous studies have shown that various care settings (including foster or residential care) can be effective for the healthy development of adolescents with an out-of-home care history [24, 26], our findings add to these results by indicating that there is a need for more studies examining protective factors that contribute to a positive development of mental health into adulthood among individuals with a history in various care settings. Furthermore, more research is needed to compare the effectiveness for adult mental health of out-of-home care with the mental health of adults who were highly burdened in childhood but were not placed out-of-home as effective control groups. Nonetheless, children and adolescents taken out-of-home show psychosocial burdens and experiences different from those who remain in their parental homes. The fact that 30% of adults with a history of out-of-home care in the child welfare system show any mental disorder is an important reminder of the need to enhance foster and residential care in childhood. The eligible studies on mental disorders in adults with a juvenile justice placement history were considerably lower in number than the studies on adults with a child welfare placement history, and generally not of a high quality. We, therefore, have less confidence in our findings in this respect, and more research is needed regarding adults with histories of juvenile justice placement. Furthermore, previous studies have indicated that crossover youths show higher levels of negative trajectories in care and greater exposure to psychosocial burden [15, 17], but we were not able to obtain information on dual involvement in care systems. Our findings thus indicate that more studies with standardized study designs and sample definitions are needed to estimate the occurrence of mental disorders across care systems to identify protective and risk factors for individuals with out-of-home care histories.

Limitations

The results of our meta-analysis have some limitations. First, the small number of studies for some mental disorders limits the interpretation of our effect sizes. We could not examine the effect of continuous moderators in a meta-regression analysis (i.e., percentage of females, mean age of sample, age at entry into care, duration of care, and dropout rates), because conducting meta-regression analysis with k < 10 studies is not considered valid, and therefore, not recommended [55]. In addition, it is not recommended to conduct meta-regressions with person-level (as opposed to study-level) variables in meta-analyses (e.g., age as a continuous predictor patient-level variable; [81]). A meta-regression based on the study means of patient-level variables is considered problematic, because these findings are prone to bias; this is often described as the ecological fallacy [81]. To come to valid conclusions in meta-analyses using individual-based predictors (like age), individual patient data would be needed, to conduct individual patient data meta-analyses. This, however, was not the goal of the present meta-analytic investigation. Furthermore, between 7 and 11 of the studies we included did not report information on exposure to out-of-home care, such as mean age at entry into care, duration of care, and dropout rates. However, previous studies have shown that early age at entry and a longer duration of care are associated with better mental health outcomes in youth care [82, 83]. Only one study reported the number of placements [66], and none of the included studies provided information on the disruption or breakdown of care, both of which have been associated with mental health outcomes [84,85,86]. Thus, future studies should provide more information about relevant characteristics of out-of-home care to identify their effects on subsequent mental health. In addition, we could not discern any influence of other relevant personal moderator variables (e.g., adverse childhood experiences) associated with the effect sizes [4, 21, 49, 87].

Second, our meta-analyses showed low to high heterogeneity for the individual disorders, indicating variation in study outcomes due to methodological differences between studies. In 15 of the studies we included, the diagnoses were based on diagnostic interviews, and four of the studies used screening scales instead [61, 66, 70, 73]. Although screening scales could be considered less valid than clinically defined diagnoses, previous validation studies have shown that the screening scales used in the studies we included were valid when compared with clinically derived diagnoses [88,89,90,91,92,93]. For some disorders, some individual studies contributed more to between-study heterogeneity than others; this was reduced if these outlier studies were excluded.

Third, the small number of studies in our funnel plots further indicated possible publication bias, suggesting that studies with smaller and possibly non-significant prevalence rates are more likely to remain unpublished compared to studies with larger and significant findings. If this is so, our results summarizing only the publicly available evidence might suggest a larger prevalence rate than would be the case if all the evidence, including unpublished findings, had been analyzed.

Fourth, we were not able to compare the prevalence rates of mental disorders among adults with a foster care history with those among adults with a residential child welfare placement history, because only one of the studies included a sample with residential child welfare placement history in addition to a sample with foster care history [66]. Future studies might, therefore, distinguish between foster and group care samples to directly compare mental disorders between the two groups. Likewise, none of the studies we included reported information on the quality of structures or processes of care, which have been shown to explain a great part of the variance in outcomes across care systems [8, 94, 95].

Fifth, the extent to which a child welfare or juvenile justice authority is involved in out-of-home care depends on the policy and legislation of the country in question. The differing organization of child welfare and juvenile justice systems between countries complicates the comparison and pooling of results for samples from different jurisdictions, and thus should be interpreted with caution.

Sixth, our findings do not allow conclusions to be drawn regarding trajectories or treatment effects, as only three studies [64, 76, 77] assessed mental disorders during and after out-of-home care.

Finally, since only one study [67] examined the comorbidity of mental disorders, we were not able to include this relevant factor in our analyses [96, 97]. For example, Dölitzsch et al. [20] showed that 74% of children and adolescents in residential care had a psychiatric disorder, and that 60% of those individuals also fulfilled the criteria for more than one diagnosis. In addition, higher risks for comorbid disorders in adulthood have been reported in other studies [27, 98]. Therefore, future research should investigate the comorbidity of disorders after leaving care to improve etiological models and interventions to account for this complexity.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive review and meta-analysis summarizing adult mental disorders in the high-risk group of individuals with a child welfare or juvenile justice out-of-home care history. The main finding is that one-third of adults with a child welfare foster or residential care history show any mental disorder. In comparison, almost half of adults with a juvenile justice residential care history fulfill the criteria for a mental disorder. Both those rates are significantly higher than the rates found in studies of the general adult population. However, our findings suggest that the level of any mental disorder in adulthood for individuals in out-of-home care might be lower than the level of mental disorders found in previous meta-analyses of out-of-home care [3, 4] or in psychosocially highly burdened adults without a history of out-of-home care [80].

The child and adolescent psychiatry and out-of-home care systems are tasked with supporting young people’s mental health by providing a successful transition into young adulthood, which is accompanied by various difficulties during this vulnerable period [29]. The scarcity of evidence regarding specific disorders in out-of-home placed populations highlights the need for more longitudinal research that estimates the prevalence rates of mental disorders with standardized assessments and with standardized definitions and quality characteristics of care, thereby reaching conclusive findings about the trajectories of the specific disorders. Future studies on the development of mental disorders in care systems may help to identify protective factors among individuals with mental disorders, so as to further support a successful transition to an independent adult life. For instance, future studies should investigate the effect of close cooperation between child and adolescent psychiatric services and care systems in offering a combination of environment-orientated and evidence-based treatments for individuals leaving care (i.e., liaison services; [24, 99,100,101,102]). Such results would be important for shaping interventions that support a successful transition to an independent adult life. Due to the great differences in child protection and juvenile justice law and policies between countries and jurisdictions, international studies on the trajectories of mental disorders after leaving care are challenging but, nonetheless, badly needed.

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Code availability

Not applicable.

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis

  1. Desmond C, Watt K, Saha A, Huang J, Lu C (2020) Prevalence and number of children living in institutional care: global, regional, and country estimates. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 4:370–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-4642(20)30022-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Munro ER, Manful E (2012) Safeguarding children: a comparison of England's data with that of Australia, Norway and the United States. Department for Education, London

  3. Bronsard G, Alessandrini M, Fond G, Loundou A, Auquier P, Tordjman S, Boyer L (2016) The prevalence of mental disorders among children and adolescents in the child welfare system: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine 95:e2622. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000002622

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Beaudry G, Yu R, Langstrom N, Fazel FS (2020) An updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis: mental disorders among adolescents in juvenile detention and correctional facilities. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 60:46–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2020.01.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahrens KR, Garrison MM, Courtney ME (2014) Health outcomes in young adults from foster care and economically diverse backgrounds. Pediatrics 134:1067–1074. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-1150

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Courtney ME, Okpych NJ, Park S (2018) Report from CalYOUTH: Findings on the relationship between extended foster care and youth’s outcomes at age 21. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  7. Havlicek J, Garcia A, Smith DC (2013) Mental health and substance use disorders among foster youth transitioning to adulthood: past research and future directions. Child Youth Serv Rev 35:194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.10.003

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Gabriel T, Keller S, Bolter F, Martin-Blachais M-P, Séraphin G (2013) Out of home care in France and Switzerland. Psychosoc Interv 22:215–225. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2013a25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Garcia Quiroga M, Hamilton-Giachritsis C (2014) „In the name of the children”: public policies for children in out-of-home care in Chile. Historical review, present situation and future challenges. Child Youth Serv Rev 44:422–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.07.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Healy K, Lundström T, Sallnäs M (2011) A comparison of out-of-home care for children and young people in australia and sweden: worlds apart? Aust Soc Work 64:416–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407x.2011.603092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hardera AT, Zeller M, López M, Köngeter S, Knorth EJ (2013) Different sizes, similar challenges: out of home care for youth in Germany and the Netherlands. Psychosoc Interv 22:203–213. https://doi.org/10.5093/in2013a24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fazel S, Doll H, Långström N (2008) Mental disorders among adolescents in juvenile detention and correctional facilities: a systematic review and metaregression analysis of 25 surveys. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 47:1010–1019. https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e31817eecf3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wilson HW, Berent E, Donenberg GR, Emerson EM, Rodriguez EM, Sandesara A (2013) Trauma history and PTSD symptoms in juvenile offenders on probation. Victims Offenders. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2013.835296

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Cheng TC, Li Q (2017) Adolescent delinquency in child welfare system: a multiple disadvantage model. Child Youth Serv Rev 73:205–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.12.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Baglivio MT, Wolff KT, Piquero AR, Bilchik S, Jackowski K, Greenwald MA, Epps N (2016) Maltreatment, child welfare, and recidivism in a sample of deep-end crossover youth. J Youth Adolesc 45:625–654. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0407-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee S-Y, Villagrana M (2015) Differences in risk and protective factors between crossover and non-crossover youth in juvenile justice. Child Youth Serv Rev 58:18–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Herz DC, Ryan JP, Bilchik S (2010) Challenges facing crossover youth: an examination of juvenile-justice decision making and recidivism. Fam Court Rev 48:305–321. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2010.01312.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Turney K, Wildeman C (2016) Mental and physical health of children in foster care. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Font SA (2014) Kinship and nonrelative foster care: the effect of placement type on child wellbeing. Child Dev 85:2074–2090. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12241

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dölitzsch C, Fegert JM, Künster A, Kölch M, Schmeck K, Schmid M (2014) Mehrfachdiagnosen bei Schweizer Heimjugendlichen. Kindheit und Entwicklung 23:140–150. https://doi.org/10.1026/0942-5403/a000140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lehmann S, Havik OE, Havik T, Heiervang ER (2013) Mental disorders in foster children: a study of prevalence, comorbidity and risk factors. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. https://doi.org/10.1186/1753-2000-7-39

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Colins O, Vermeiren R, Vreugdenhil C, van den Brink W, Doreleijers T, Broekaert E (2010) Psychiatric disorders in detained male adolescents: a systematic literature review. Can J Psychiatry 55:255–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371005500409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Polanczyk GV, Salum GA, Sugaya LS, Caye A, Rohde LA (2015) Annual research review: a meta-analysis of the worldwide prevalence of mental disorders in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 56:345–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12381

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. De Swart JJW, Van den Broek H, Stams GJJM, Asscher JJ, Van der Laan PH, Holsbrink-Engels GA, Van der Helm GHP (2012) The effectiveness of institutional youth care over the past three decades: a meta-analysis. Child Youth Serv Rev 34:1818–1824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.05.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Goemans A, van Geel M, Vedder P (2015) Over three decades of longitudinal research on the development of foster children: a meta-analysis. Child Abuse Negl 42:121–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Strijbosch ELL, Huijs JAM, Stams GJJM, Wissink IB, van der Helm GHP, de Swart JJW, van der Veen Z (2015) The outcome of institutional youth care compared to non-institutional youth care for children of primary school age and early adolescence: a multi-level meta-analysis. Child Youth Serv Rev 58:208–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.09.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Copeland WE, Wolke D, Shanahan L, Costello EJ (2015) Adult functional outcomes of common childhood psychiatric problems: a prospective, longitudinal study. JAMA Psychiat 72:892–899. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.0730

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Paksarian D, Cui L, Angst J, Ajdacic-Gross V, Rossler W, Merikangas KR (2016) Latent trajectories of common mental health disorder risk across 3 decades of adulthood in a population-based cohort. JAMA Psychiat 73:1023–1031. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.1921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Fegert JM, Hauth I, Banaschewski T, Freyberger HJ (2016) Übergang zwischen Jugend- und Erwachsenenalter. Psychotherapeut 62:34–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00278-016-0159-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Arnett JJ (2001) Conceptions of the transition to adulthood: perspectives from adolescence through midlife. J Adult Dev 8:133–143. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026450103225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Copeland WE, Shanahan L, Costello EJ, Angold A (2009) Childhood and adolescent psychiatric disorders as predictors of young adult disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 66:764–772. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2009.85

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Copeland WE, Shanahan L, Hinesley J, Chan RF, Aberg KA, Fairbank JA, van den Oord E, Costello EJ (2018) Association of childhood trauma exposure with adult psychiatric disorders and functional outcomes. JAMA Netw Open 1:e184493. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.4493

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kim-Cohen J, Caspi A, Moffitt TE, Harrington H, Milne BJ, Poulton R (2003) Prior juvenile diagnoses in adults with mental disorder: developmental follow-back of a prospective-longitudinal cohort. Arch Gen Psychiatry 60:709–717. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.60.7.709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ravens-Sieberer U, Otto C, Kriston L, Rothenberger A, Dopfner M, Herpertz-Dahlmann B, Barkmann C, Schon G, Holling H, Schulte-Markwort M, Klasen F, Group Bs (2015) The longitudinal BELLA study: design, methods and first results on the course of mental health problems. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 24:651–663. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-014-0638-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Welty LJ, Harrison AJ, Abram KM, Olson ND, Aaby DA, McCoy KP, Washburn JJ, Teplin LA (2016) Health disparities in drug- and alcohol-use disorders: a 12-year longitudinal study of youths after detention. Am J Public Health 106:872–880. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.303032

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. van der Molen E, Vermeiren RR, Krabbendam AA, Beekman AT, Doreleijers TA, Jansen LM (2013) Detained adolescent females’ multiple mental health and adjustment problem outcomes in young adulthood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 54:950–957. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Barnert ES, Dudovitz R, Nelson BB, Coker TR, Biely C, Li N, Chung PJ (2017) How does incarcerating young people affect their adult health outcomes? Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2624

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Teplin LA, Welty LJ, Abram KM, Dulcan MK, Washburn JJ (2012) Prevalence and persistence of psychiatric disorders in youth after detention: a prospective longitudinal study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 69:1031–1043. https://doi.org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.2062

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Gypen L, Vanderfaeillie J, De Maeyer S, Belenger L, Van Holen F (2017) Outcomes of children who grew up in foster care: systematic—review. Child Youth Serv Rev 76:74–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.02.035

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kääriälä A, Hiilamo H (2017) Children in out-of-home care as young adults: a systematic review of outcomes in the Nordic countries. Child Youth Serv Rev 79:107–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.05.030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Braciszewski JM, Stout RL (2012) Substance use among current and former foster youth: a systematic review. Child Youth Serv Rev 34:2337–2344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.08.011

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Stein M, Dumaret A-C (2011) The mental health of young people aging out of care and entering adulthood: Exploring the evidence from England and France. Child Youth Serv Rev 33:2504–2511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Oswald SH, Heil K, Goldbeck L (2010) History of maltreatment and mental health problems in foster children: a review of the literature. J Pediatr Psychol 35:462–472. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsp114

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 283:2008–2012. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rutter M, Tizard J, Whitmore K (1970) Education, health and behavior. London, United Kingdom

  46. Goldberg DP, Hillier VF (1979) A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychol Med 9:139–145. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291700021644

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. *Forsman H, Brannstrom L, Vinnerljung B, Hjern A (2016) Does poor school performance cause later psychosocial problems among children in foster care? Evidence from national longitudinal registry data. Child Abuse Negl 57:61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.06.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. *Landers AL, Danes SM, Ingalls-Maloney K, White Hawk S (2017) American Indian and White adoptees: are there mental health differences? Am Indian Alsk Native Ment Health Res 24:54–75. https://doi.org/10.5820/aian.2402.2017.54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fedock G, Garthe RC, Sarantakos S, Golder S, Higgins GE, Logan TK (2018) A life course perspective of victimization, child welfare involvement, cumulative stress and mental health for mothers on probation and parole. Child Abuse Negl 86:235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.10.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Vinnerljung B, Hjern A, Lindblad F (2006) Suicide attempts and severe psychiatric morbidity among former child welfare clients—a national cohort study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 47:723–733. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2005.01530.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Zlotnick C, Tam TW, Soman LA (2012) Life course outcomes on mental and physical health: the impact of foster care on adulthood. Am J Public Health 102:534–540. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300285

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. van Delft I, Finkenauer C, Verbruggen J (2016) Child maltreatment and social connectedness among formerly institutionalized females: links with depression. J Interpers Violence 31:1393–1412. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514567959

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P (2009) The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonran-domized studies in meta-analysis. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.htm. Accessed 15 Nov 2019

  54. Leloux-Opmeer H, Kuiper C, Swaab H, Scholte E (2016) Characteristics of children in foster care, family-style group care, and residential care: a Scoping review. J Child Fam Stud 25:2357–2371. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-016-0418-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Cuijpers P (2016) Meta-analyses in mental health research. A practical guide. Pim Cuijpers Uitgeverij, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  56. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (2019) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0. Cochrane. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook

  57. Borenstein M, Higgins JP, Hedges LV, Rothstein HR (2017) Basics of meta-analysis: I(2) is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity. Res Synth Methods 8:5–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 327:557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR (2011) Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  60. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (2020) R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/

  61. *Teyhan A, Wijedasa D, Macleod J (2018) Adult psychosocial outcomes of men and women who were looked-after or adopted as children: prospective observational study. BMJ Open 8:e019095. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019095

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. *Viner RM, Taylor B (2005) Adult health and social outcomes of children who have been in public care: population-based study. Pediatrics 115:894–899. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2004-1311

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. *Vinnerljung B, Sallnäs M (2008) Into adulthood: a follow-up study of 718 young people who were placed in out-of-home care during their teens. Child Fam Soc Work 13:144–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2007.00527.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. *Heard-Garris N, Sacotte KA, Winkelman TNA, Cohen A, Ekwueme PO, Barnert E, Carnethon M, Davis MM (2019) Association of childhood history of parental incarceration and juvenile justice involvement with mental health in early adulthood. JAMA Netw Open 2:e1910465. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.10465

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. *Björkenstam E, Vinnerljung B, Hjern A (2017) Impact of childhood adversities on depression in early adulthood: a longitudinal cohort study of 478,141 individuals in Sweden. J Affect Disord 223:95–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.07.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. *Dregan A, Gulliford MC (2012) Foster care, residential care and public care placement patterns are associated with adult life trajectories: population-based cohort study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 47:1517–1526. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-011-0458-5

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. *Côté SM, Orri M, Marttila M, Ristikari T (2018) Out-of-home placement in early childhood and psychiatric diagnoses and criminal convictions in young adulthood: a population-based propensity score-matched study. Lancet Child Adolesc Health 2:647–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-4642(18)30207-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. *Räikkönen K, Lahti M, Heinonen K, Pesonen AK, Wahlbeck K, Kajantie E, Osmond C, Barker DJ, Eriksson JG (2011) Risk of severe mental disorders in adults separated temporarily from their parents in childhood: the Helsinki birth cohort study. J Psychiatr Res 45:332–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2010.07.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. *Southerland D, Casanueva CE, Ringeisen H (2009) Young adult outcomes and mental health problems among transition age youth investigated for maltreatment during adolescence. Child Youth Serv Rev 31:947–956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.03.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. *Benedict MI, Zuravin S, Stallings RY (1996) Adult functioning of children who lived in kin versus nonrelative family foster homes. Child Welfare 75

  71. *Abram KM, Azores-Gococo NM, Emanuel KM, Aaby DA, Welty LJ, Hershfield JA, Rosenbaum MS, Teplin LA (2017) Sex and racial/ethnic differences in positive outcomes in delinquent youth after detention: a 12-year longitudinal study. JAMA Pediatr 171:123–132. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.3260

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. *Ramchand R, Morral AR, Becker K (2009) Seven–year life outcomes of adolescent offenders in Los Angeles. Am J Public Health 99:863–870. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.142281

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. *Verbruggen J, van der Geest V, Bijleveld C (2018) Adult outcomes of youths who have spent time in a judicial treatment institution in the Netherlands. Longit Life Course Stud. https://doi.org/10.14301/llcs.v9i1.461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Steel Z, Marnane C, Iranpour C, Chey T, Jackson JW, Patel V, Silove D (2014) The global prevalence of common mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis 1980–2013. Int J Epidemiol 43:476–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyu038

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Bronsard G, Lançon C, Loundou A, Auquier P, Rufo M, Siméoni M-C (2011) Prevalence rate of DSM mental disorders among adolescents living in residential group homes of the French child welfare system. Child Youth Serv Rev 33:1886–1890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.05.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. *Brown A, Courtney ME, Curtis McMillen J (2015) Behavioral health needs and service use among those who’ve aged-out of foster care. Child Youth Serv Rev 58:163–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.09.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. *Casanueva C, Stambaugh L, Urato M, Fraser JG, Williams J (2011) Lost in transition: Illicit substance use and services receipt among at-risk youth in the child welfare system. Child Youth Serv Rev 33:1939–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.05.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. *Fernandez E, Lee J-S, McNamara P (2019) ‘Uprooted from everything that attaches you’: long-term outcomes of former child migrants in care in the twentieth century in australia. Br J Soc Work 49:523–545. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcy070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Courtney ME, Harty J, Kindle B, Dennis K, Okpych NJ, Torres García A (2017) Findings from the California youth transitions to adulthood study (CalYOUTH): conditions of youth at age 19: Los Angeles county report. Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  80. Hughes K, Bellis MA, Hardcastle KA, Sethi D, Butchart A, Mikton C, Jones L, Dunne MP (2017) The effect of multiple adverse childhood experiences on health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Public Health 2:e356–e366. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2468-2667(17)30118-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Thompson SG, Higgins JP (2002) How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 21:1559–1573. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1187

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Humphreys KL, Gleason MM, Drury SS, Miron D, Nelson CA, Fox NA, Zeanah CH (2015) Effects of institutional rearing and foster care on psychopathology at age 12 years in Romania: follow-up of an open, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry 2:625–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(15)00095-4

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Rubin DM, O’Reilly AL, Luan X, Localio AR (2007) The impact of placement stability on behavioral well-being for children in foster care. Pediatrics 119:336–344. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-1995

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Jones R, Everson-Hock ES, Papaioannou D, Guillaume L, Goyder E, Chilcott J, Cooke J, Payne N, Duenas A, Sheppard LM, Swann C (2011) Factors associated with outcomes for looked-after children and young people: a correlates review of the literature. Child Care Health Dev 37:613–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2011.01226.x

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Oosterman M, Schuengel C, Wim Slot N, Bullens RAR, Doreleijers TAH (2007) Disruptions in foster care: a review and meta-analysis. Child Youth Serv Rev 29:53–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2006.07.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Newton RR, Litrownik AJ, Landsverk JA (2000) Children and youth in foster care: disentangling the relationship between problem behaviors and number of placements. Child Abuse Negl 24:1363–1374

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Lueger-Schuster B, Knefel M, Gluck TM, Jagsch R, Kantor V, Weindl D (2018) Child abuse and neglect in institutional settings, cumulative lifetime traumatization, and psychopathological long-term correlates in adult survivors: the Vienna Institutional Abuse Study. Child Abuse Negl 76:488–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.12.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Aalto AM, Elovainio M, Kivimaki M, Uutela A, Pirkola S (2012) The Beck Depression Inventory and General Health Questionnaire as measures of depression in the general population: a validation study using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview as the gold standard. Psychiatry Res 197:163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2011.09.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Breslau N (1985) Depressive symptoms, major depression, and generalized anxiety: a comparison of self-reports on CES-D and results from diagnostic interviews. Psychiatry Res 15:219–229

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Dervaux A, Bayle FJ, Laqueille X, Bourdel MC, Leborgne M, Olie JP, Krebs MO (2006) Validity of the CAGE questionnaire in schizophrenic patients with alcohol abuse and dependence. Schizophr Res 81:151–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2005.09.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Dhalla S, Kopec JA (2007) The CAGE questionnaire for alcohol misuse: a review of reliability and validity studies. Clin Investig Med 30(1):33–41

  92. Eberhard-Gran M, Eskild A, Tambs K, Opjordsmoen S, Ove Samuelsen S (2001) Review of validation studies of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 30(1):243–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. McGee R, Williams S, Silva PA (1986) An evaluation of the Malaise inventory. J Psychosom Res 30:147–152

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Jäggi L, Kliewer W, Serpell Z (2020) Schooling while incarcerated as a turning point for serious juvenile and young adult offenders. J Adolesc 78:9–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2019.11.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Schubert CA, Mulvey EP, Loughran TA, Losoya SH (2011) Perceptions of institutional experience and community outcomes for serious adolescent offenders. Crim Justice Behav 39:71–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811426710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Lüdtke J, Boonmann C, Dölitzsch C, In-Albon T, Jenkel N, Kölch M, Fegert JM, Schmeck K, Schmid M (2017) Komorbide Angststörungen bei Störungen des Sozialverhaltens. Kindheit und Entwicklung 26:100–109. https://doi.org/10.1026/0942-5403/a000221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Schmid M (2008) Children and adolescents in german youth welfare institutions—a child and adolescent psychiatry/psychotherapy perspective. Eur Psychiatr Rev 1:10–12

    Google Scholar 

  98. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE (2005) Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry 62:593–602. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.62.6.593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. James S (2011) What works in group care? A structured review of treatment models for group homes and residential care. Child Youth Serv Rev 33:308–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.09.014

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  100. James S (2017) Implementing evidence-based practice in residential care—how far have we come? Resid Treat Children Youth 34:155–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2017.1332330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Munson MR, Katz CC, Okpych NJ, Courtney ME (2020) Mental health management among older youth in foster care: service utilization and preparedness. J Adolesc Health 67:225–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.02.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Besier T, Fegert JM, Goldbeck L (2009) Evaluation of psychiatric liaison-services for adolescents in residential group homes. Eur Psychiatry 24:483–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eurpsy.2009.02.006

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. *Hjern A, Vinnerljung B, Brännström L (2019) Outcomes in adulthood of adoption after long-term foster care: a sibling study. Dev Child Welfare 1:61–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/2516103218815702

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our most sincere thanks to Dr. Ashley Landers and Dr. Hilma Forsman, who generously gave their time to provide additional information or data in support of this study. We would also like to thank Dr. Andreas Ledl for supporting us in the literature searches in bibliographical databases.

Funding

Open Access funding provided by Universität Basel (Universitätsbibliothek Basel). The Swiss Federal Ministry of Justice funded this research as part of the lead author’s doctorate in psychology.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Research, Psychiatric University Hospitals, University of Basel, Wilhelm Klein-Strasse 27, 4002, Basel, Switzerland

    Süheyla Seker, Cyril Boonmann, Delfine d’Huart, Klaus Schmeck & Marc Schmid

  2. Division of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Heike Gerger

  3. Department of General Practice, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands

    Heike Gerger

  4. Division of Personality and Developmental Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland

    Lena Jäggi

Authors
  1. Süheyla Seker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cyril Boonmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heike Gerger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Lena Jäggi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Delfine d’Huart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Klaus Schmeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marc Schmid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SS and CB conceived the study. SS, LJ, and DdH conducted the systematic review. SS and DdH extracted the data and carried out the quality assessment. SS conducted the statistical analyses. HG assisted with the initial study search, analyzing and interpreting the data, and updating the study search. SS and CB drafted the first version of the manuscript. CB, HG, DdH, LJ, KS, and MS further revised and edited the manuscript for publication. KS and MS supervised the study at each stage. All the authors contributed equally to the manuscript and have read and approved the final version.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Süheyla Seker.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 869 KB)

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Seker, S., Boonmann, C., Gerger, H. et al. Mental disorders among adults formerly in out-of-home care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01828-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01828-0

Keywords

  • Mental disorder
  • Developmental psychopathology
  • Child welfare system
  • Juvenile justice system
  • Systematic review
  • Meta-analysis