Recovery schools for improving behavioral and academic outcomes among students in recovery from substance use disorders: a systematic review

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret

Recovery schools for students recovering from substance use disorders are evaluated through a systematic review aimed at improving behavioral and academic outcomes. The review, published as a Campbell Systematic Review (2018:9), summarizes evidence gathered after searches executed in September 2018 and organized via predefined eligibility criteria. Findings are synthesized across study results covering search processes, risks of bias, and overall evidence completeness, leading to authors’ conclusions for practice, policy, and further research.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages89

Reading Time3 h 44 min

AccessFree to download

Plain Language Summary

Executive Summary/Abstract

Background

Objectives

Search Methods

Selection Criteria

Data Collection and Analysis

Results

Authors’ Conclusions

1 Background

The Problem, Condition or Issue

The Intervention

How the Intervention Might Work

Why It Is Important to Do the Review

2 Objectives

3 Methods

Criteria for Considering Studies for This Review

Search Methods for Identification of Studies

Data Collection and Analysis

Deviations from the Protocol

4 Results

Results of Search

Risk of Bias in Included Studies

Synthesis of Results

5 Discussion

Summary of Main Results

Overall Completeness and Applicability of Evidence

Quality of the Evidence

Limitations and Potential Biases in the Review Process

Agreements and Disagreements with Other Reviews

6 Authors’ Conclusions

Implications for Practice and Policy

Implications for Research

Education Coordinating Group Recovery schools for improving behavioral and academic outcomes among students in recovery from substance use disorders: a systematic review Emily A. Hennessy, Emily E. Tanner-Smith, Andrew J. Finch, Nila Sathe, Shannon Kugley A Campbell Systematic Review 2018:9 Published: October 2018 Search executed: September 2018 The Campbell Library comprises: • Systematic reviews (titles, protocols and reviews) • Policies and Guidelines Series • Methods Series Go to the library to download these resources, at: [www.campbellcollaboration.org/library/](www.campbellcollaboration.org/library/) Better evidence for a better world Colophon | Title | Recovery schools for improving behavioral and academic outcomes among students in recovery from substance use disorders: a systematic review | | --- | --- | | Authors | 1 Emily A. Hennessy
2 Emily E.Tanner-Smith
3 Andrew J.Finch
4 Nila Sathe
5 Shannon Kugley | | DOI
No. of pages | 10.4073/csr.2018.9
86 | | Citation | Hennessy E.A., Tanner-Smith E.E.,Finch A.J., Sathe N.A., Kugley S.A. Recovery schools for improving behavioral and academic outcomes among students in recovery from substance use disorders: a systematic review.
Campbell Systematic Reviews 2018:9
DOI: 10.4073/csr.2018.9 | | ISSN
Copyright | 1891-1803
© Hennessy et al.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. | | Roles and | Emily Hennessy and Emily Tanner-Smith contributed to the writing and | | responsibilities | revising of this protocol and the report.The search strategy was developed with Nila Sathe and Shannon Kugley.Andrew Finch, Nila Sathe, and Shannon Kugley assisted in writing the report.Emily Hennessy will be responsible for updating this review. | | Editors for | Editor: Sandra J.Wilson | | this review | Managing editor: Carlton J.Fong | | Sources of support | This review was supported with a grant from the Campbell Collaboration. | | Declarations of | Three of the authors of this review (AJF, EAH, ETS) were involved in one | | interest | primary study examining the effects of recovery high schools which was deemed eligible for inclusion in the review; external and independent data collectors extracted all data from that study.The authors of this review have no other conflicts of interest to declare. | Corresponding author Emily A.Hennessy Institute for Collaboration on Health, Intervention & Policy University of Connecticut 2006 Hillside Road Storrs, CT, 06269 USA E-mail: emily.hennessy@[uconn.edu](uconn.edu) Full list of author information is available atthe end of the article. Campbell Systematic Reviews Editor-in-Chief Editors Crime and Justice Disability Education International Development Social Welfare Knowledge Translation and Implementation Methods Managing Editor Co-Chairs Crime and Justice Disability Education Social Welfare Knowledge Translation and Implementation International Development Methods Business and Management Vivian Welch, University of Ottawa, Canada Charlotte Gill, George Mason University, USA Angela Higginson, Queensland University of Technology, Australia Carlton J.Fong, Texas State University, USA Sarah Miller, Queen’s University Belfast, UK Carlton J.Fong, Texas State University, USA Birte Snilstveit, 3ie, UK Hugh Waddington, 3ie, UK Brandy Maynard, Saint Louis University, USAAron Shlonsky, University of Melbourne, Australia Therese Pigott, Loyola University, USA Ryan Williams, AIR, USA ChuiHsia Yong, The Campbell Collaboration Peter Neyroud, Cambridge University, UK Lorraine Mazerolle, University of Queensland, Australia Oliver Wendt, Purdue University, USA Joann Starks, AIR, USA Sarah Miller, Queen's University Belfast, UK Gary W.Ritter, Saint Louis

FAQs

What is the purpose of this systematic review?

The review assesses recovery schools and their effects on behavioral and academic outcomes for students recovering from substance use disorders.

When were searches executed and what is the publication context?

Searches were executed in September 2018, and the review was published in October 2018 as Campbell Systematic Reviews 2018:9.

How are study results assessed in this review?

The review uses predefined selection criteria, collects and analyzes data from included studies, evaluates risk of bias, and synthesizes results before drawing authors’ conclusions.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Margaret