Correction to: Students’ experiences with school reintegration after psychiatric hospitalization: a scoping review (European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, (2025), 10.1007/s00787-025-02813-7)

Abstract

In the original version of this article, the format of Table 2 appeared incorrectly and should have appeared as Author, Year, Country, Publication Type Study Design Primary Aim Sample Size of Child and Youth Population, n Child and Youth Population LOS (days), % First Admission Ecological System: Self Ecological System: Family Ecological System: School/Peers Daniel, 2018 USA Dissertation Interpretive description. Cross-sectional. Understand the experiences of students who transitioned between psychiatric hospitalization and the public high school setting, and the supports they perceived to exist during the transition process. 10 17-28 years old 80% female sex Secondary school students LOS 28 days or fewer 30% first admission Barriers Lack of connection to school Facilitators Caregivers as advocates Facilitators Connection to peers; inclusion in re-entry planning; extra time on tests Barriers Feeling lack of connection to school; false rumours started by peers; school adults unwilling or unable to be supportive; stress around missed and/or outstanding schoolwork; schedule changes (to lower-level classes) DiGiovanni et al., 2024 USA Journal article Thematic analysis. Cross-sectional. Understand the dynamics between multiple players (children, parents, school staff, hospital staff) in the school re-entry after psychiatric hospitalization experience. 4 Mean age 12 years* (SD±1.27) 25% female sex 75% cisgender School stage unspecified Hospitalized for behavioural outbursts and urges to self-harm, and suicidal ideation (primary diagnoses not reported) LOS not reported 50% first admission Barriers Peers asking intrusive questions Fance, 2023 UK Dissertation Multiple case studies. Cross-sectional. Investigate children and young people’s experiences of successful school reintegration following time spent in a mental health unit, from the perspective of those young people and their parents. 4 8-20 years old 25% female sex Elementary and secondary school students LOS 8 weeks to 18 months (18-month admission reported as inpatient care across three different mental health units) Barriers Difficulty managing psychiatric symptoms Facilitators Caregivers as advocates Facilitators Connection to peers; school adult(s) taking initiative to reach out Barriers School adults unwilling or unable to be supportive; bullying Iverson, 2017 USA Dissertation Phenomenology. Cross-sectional. Explore how students experience returning to school after an acute mental health hospitalization. 8 13-18 years old 63% female sex* Secondary school students LOS 4-15 days 50% first admission Facilitators More positive thoughts and feelings; better coping Barriers Difficult emotions Facilitators Connection to peers; being open with peers about mental health; school adult(s) taking initiative to reach out; school adult(s) expressing understanding about student absence; being open with school adults about mental health; inclusion in re-entry planning; plan for making up missed schoolwork; extra time on tests; ability to takes breaks during class Barriers Ongoing psychiatric symptoms; false rumours started by peers; peers asking intrusive questions; bullying; feeling judged by school adults; stress around missed and/or outstanding schoolwork Marks, 1987 USA Journal article Multimethods. Cross-sectional. Explore the experiences and understand the needs of students transitioning back to school from psychiatric hospitalization. 37 quantitative/4 qualitative 9-17 years old 54% female sex Elementary and secondary school students Median LOS 16 days Facilitators School adult(s) taking initiative to reach out Marraccini et al., 2022 USA Journal article Mixed methods. Longitudinal. Inform school-based suicide prevention for students transitioning back to school after psychiatric hospitalization. 155 Mean age 15 years* (SD±1.41) 69% female sex* Gender identity reported as % indicating that their gender did not match the sex described on their birth certificates (14%*) 65% white* School stage unspecified Hospitalized for suicidality (primary diagnoses not reported) Mean LOS 9 days* Barriers Lack of connection to school Barriers Feeling lack of connection to school; bullying; negative perceptions of relationships with school adults Marraccini and Pittleman, 2022 USA Journal article Applied thematic analysis. Cross-sectional. Understand and describe students’ school re-entry experiences following hospitalization for a suicide-related crisis and explore perceived ways for improving school re-entry. 19 Mean age 16 years* (SD±1.3) 90% female sex* 84% cisgender* 58% white* School stage unspecified Hospitalized for suicidality (primary diagnoses not reported) Mean LOS 13 days* (SD±4.7) Facilitators Caregivers as advocates Facilitators Connection to peers; school adult(s) taking initiative to reach out; inclusion in re-entry planning; plan for making up missed schoolwork; gradual return to school Barriers Changes in friendships; false rumours started by peers; peers asking intrusive questions; bullying; feeling judged by school adults; stress around missed and/or outstanding schoolwork; schedule changes (to lower-level classes) Preyde et al., 2018 Canada Journal article Mixed methods, exploratory. Longitudinal. Explore students’ perceptions of school reintegration following psychiatric hospitalization, and the clinical features and school variables associated with negative school re-entry experiences. 161 quantitative/62 qualitative Mean age 16 years* (SD±1.78) 68% female sex Elementary and secondary school students Various primary diagnoses, primarily mood disorders Mean LOS 7 days*, reported as “number of school days missed” 69% first admission* Facilitators More positive thoughts and feelings; fewer distressing symptoms Barriers Difficulty managing psychiatric symptoms; difficult emotions; lack of connection to school Facilitators Connection to peers; being open with peers about mental health; being open with school adults about mental health; meeting with school mental health staff Barriers Ongoing psychiatric symptoms; feeling lack of connection to school; changes in friendships; bullying; stress around missed and/or outstanding schoolwork Preyde et al., 2021 Canada Journal article Mixed methods, exploratory. Longitudinal. Explore how students discharged from psychiatric inpatient units reported the ease of school re-entry since strategies from Preyde et al.’s 2018 study were implemented, what supports they received, and their self-reported levels of stress and resilience. 111 Mean age 16 years* (SD±1.0) 77% female sex* 77% white* Secondary school students Various primary diagnoses, primarily MDD Mean LOS 10 days* (SD±4.19) Barriers Difficulty managing psychiatric symptoms Facilitators School adult(s) taking initiative to reach out; inclusion in re-entry planning; plan for making up missed schoolwork; meeting with school mental health staff; school mental health staff communicating on students’ behalf Barriers Ongoing psychiatric symptoms; false rumours started by peers; bullying; stress around missed and/or outstanding schoolwork Shelley, 2007 USA Dissertation Mixed methods. Longitudinal. Examine predictors of positive school adjustment following a psychiatric hospitalization. 87 12-17 years old (mean 15 years*) 64% female sex* Elementary and secondary school students Diagnoses included mood disorders, psychotic disorders, and behavioural disorders LOS not reported Barriers Difficulty managing psychiatric symptoms Facilitators Extra time on tests Barriers Ongoing psychiatric symptoms In the original version of this article, the author names were incorrectly given as “Katherine Sainsbury1,2 · Kristin Cleverley1,2 · Soha Salman3,2 · Leah Algu4,2 · Amanda Uliaszek1 · Lindsay Jibb3,5 · Jillian Halladay4,6” should have read “Katherine Sainsbury1,2 · Kristin Cleverley1,2 · Leah Algu4,2. Soha Salman3,2 · Amanda Uliaszek1 · Lindsay Jibb1 · Jillian Halladay4,6”. In the Introduction section in the fourth paragraph the fourth sentence were incorrectly given as, “They identified both individual and environmental elements impacting this transition and categorized these factors using aspects of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological systems theory [42]” should have read “They identified both individual and environmental elements impacting this transition and categorized these factors using aspects of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory [42]”. And in the fifth paragraph, the “post-secondary” should have read “postsecondary” to the rest of the paper. The “Ecological systems theory” should have read “ecological systems theory” to the rest of the paper. The Figure 1 were incorrectly appeared as given below. But should have appeared as. Figure 1 PRISMA Diagram of Search and Screening Results In the Result section, under the subheading Characteristics of documents the first sentence were incorrectly given as “Search one and search two together initially yielded 11,433 articles for screening (see Fig. 1). Following title and abstract screening, 31 documents met al.l our inclusion criteria and were retrieved for full-text review” should have read “Search one and search two together initially yielded 11,433 articles for screening (see Fig. 1). Following title and abstract screening, 31 documents met all our inclusion criteria and were retrieved for full-text review”. And the sixth sentence were incorrectly given as “Three of the peer-reviewed articles recruited participants with a range of diagnoses, including mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance use disorders, etc [7, 19, 56]” should have read “Three of the peer-reviewed articles recruited participants with a range of diagnoses, including mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance use disorders, etc. [7, 19, 56]”. In the Discussion section, the fourth sentence were incorrectly given as “Only four primary authors were responsible for all six of the peer-reviewed articles, and only three of these authors had published in the last ten years” should have read “Only three primary authors were responsible for all five of the peer-reviewed articles, and only two of these authors had published in the last ten years”. In the Discussion section, the fifth paragraph were incorrectly given as “Our review underscores the significant need for increased support from hospitals and their staff. Our results indicate that students did not perceive any hospital-based factors as impacting their school reintegration. Literature on the clinician perspective emphasizes the need for improved linkages between schools and hospitals, with sustained communication throughout a student’s hospitalization and transition [33, 34, 60], including planning for school reintegration during. hospitalization [28, 74]. One study explored how information sharing between these institutions could be enhanced during the hospital-to-school transition [74]. While school staff wanted as much information as possible, students were sometimes reluctant to consent to information sharing from hospitals to schools [74]. Effective planning for school re-entry requires collaboration among students, school staff, and hospital staff, necessitating strong relationships and connections between these institutions in order to support reintegrating students” should have read “Our review underscores the significant need for increased support from hospitals and their staff. Our results indicate that students did not perceive any hospital-based factors as impacting their school reintegration. Literature on the clinician perspective emphasizes the need for improved linkages between schools and hospitals, with sustained communication throughout a student’s hospitalization and transition [33, 34, 60], including planning for school reintegration during hospitalization [28, 74]. One study explored how information sharing between these institutions could be enhanced during the hospital-to-school transition [74]. While school staff wanted as much information as possible, students were sometimes reluctant to consent to information sharing from hospitals to schools [74]. Effective planning for school re-entry requires collaboration among students, school staff, and hospital staff, necessitating strong relationships and connections between these institutions in order to support reintegrating students”. In the Conclusion section, the fourth sentence were incorrectly given as “Further research will allow for a better understanding of how students can be supported during this vulnerable time, especially predischarge longitudinal studies and studies that focus on the transition back to school for college and university students” should have read “Further research will allow for a understanding of how students can be supported during this vulnerable time, especially predischarge longitudinal studies and studies that focus on the transition back to school for college and university students”. The original article has been corrected.