To structure the review process, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) framework (Page et al., 2021) was used with a thematic synthesis to integrate findings and generate insights beyond the individual included studies (Flemming and Noyes, 2021).

In October 2024, systematic searches were conducted of relevant databases including: PsycInfo, Education Resources Information Centre (ERIC), Web of Science, Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts (ASSIA), EBSCO host, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (see Figure 1). The search terms were developed through consultation with the existing literature to reflect the broad and evolving terminology used to describe school attendance problems (Boaler and Bond, 2023; Corcoran and Kelly, 2023). Terms such as “emotionally based school avoidance”, “truancy”, or “school exclusion” were considered, but ultimately not used as primary search terms in order to maintain a wide scope and avoid over-narrowing the search to specific subtypes. For instance, while EBSA has become a prominent term in the UK context, its use is not consistent internationally or over time, limiting its utility for a systematic search (Boaler and Bond, 2023). Similarly, “truancy” and “school exclusion” are typically associated with discrete or policy-defined attendance behaviors, which may not fully capture the broader range of attendance difficulties explored in this review. As such, more inclusive and frequently used umbrella terms like “school non-attendance” and “school absenteeism” were prioritized to ensure coverage of relevant literature across educational and geographical contexts.

The following terms were therefore used to search the databases:

(“school refusal” OR “school absenteeism” OR “school non-attendance” OR “school attendance problems” OR “chronic school absenteeism” OR “school refusal behavior”)

AND (“school staff” OR “teacher” OR “assistant” OR “educator”)

AND (“view^*” OR “perspective^*” OR “perception^*” OR “experience^*”).

Papers were filtered by title to remove those not related to school staff views of school non-attendance, leaving 453. The abstracts and keywords in the remaining articles were used to identify any that did not meet the inclusion criteria (see Table 1). Inclusion criteria were developed referring to criteria used in existing systematic reviews on school attendance (e.g., Boaler and Bond, 2023). There were two reviewers; the first reviewer searched for information sources independently and assessed studies for inclusion. Each paper was assessed against each of the eligibility criterion as “eligible/not eligible/might be eligible (full-text screen needed).” The full text was also retrieved when abstracts contained insufficient information. Eleven reports were sought for retrieval and all could be accessed. Articles were included when inclusion criteria were met from the full text. The second reviewer independently assessed 3 of papers. Disagreements or ambiguities were resolved through discussion. Data was extracted by the first reviewer and independently checked for consistency and clarity by the second reviewer.

The quality assessment process was implemented using the Weight of Evidence (WoE) framework, specifically focusing on WoE A and WoE C criteria, as outlined by Gough et al. (2017). WoE A evaluates the methodological quality of each study, a checklist (Woods, 2020) examining factors such as research design, sample selection, and data analysis techniques to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings was used, scoring each paper out of 20. A sample of papers (27%) were also assessed by second author and any disagreement resolved through collaborative discussion. Papers were categorized into high (16–20), medium (11–15) and low quality ( ≤ 10). WoE A assessment indicated that all studies scored medium or high for methodological quality, reflecting positively upon the work conducted in this area. WoE C assesses the relevance of each study to the specific research questions of the review, specific criteria were developed by the authors determining how well the study's focus aligns with the context of school staff perspectives on school non-attendance (see additional material for WoE C criteria). By applying these criteria, the researcher assessed whether the included studies were both methodologically sound and relevant to the research objectives.

The included papers were published between 2013 and 2024. Six were based in England and two in Sweden, with one study each from the USA, France and Ireland (see Table 2).

While most studies did not report detailed demographic data, several provided information relevant to participant gender or school SES. For example, Chian et al. (2024) included six school staff members (five female, one male) working in primary and secondary mainstream schools, with some schools serving boroughs with significant social and emotional mental health (SEMH) needs. Cunningham et al. (2022) reported on eight participants across seven schools with varied attendance profiles and socioeconomic contexts; some schools were situated in urban areas with below-average attendance, suggesting links to socioeconomic disadvantage. In Devenney and O'Toole's (2021) study, the final sample included 17 professionals (eight male, nine female) working across various Irish secondary schools, including those participating in the Delivering Equality of Opportunity In Schools (DEIS) scheme, a government initiative targeting low socioeconomic status schools. Such details are important for understanding the contexts in which school staff perspectives are formed and applied.

Thematic synthesis followed the three-stage process outlined by Thomas and Harden (2008). In the first stage, line-by-line inductive coding was conducted on the findings and discussion sections of each included study, generating 112 initial codes. This process involved assigning codes based on meaning and content. The first researcher independently coded each line of text according to its meaning and content. Codes were then structured in a hierarchical “tree form” or as “free” codes in NVivo 12 if they did not fit within the superordinate grouping.

In the second stage, codes were grouped and refined into 16 descriptive themes, which remained close to the original data and summarized patterns across studies. These themes captured shared perspectives or experiences reported by participants or interpreted by study authors. In the third stage, analytical themes were generated by interpreting the descriptive themes at a higher level of abstraction. This involved asking interpretive questions of the data (e.g., “What are the underlying processes or mechanisms at play?”) and identifying patterns of interaction and implication. The five analytical themes represent a conceptual understanding of the processes influencing school attendance and staff responses, moving beyond description to generate novel insights (see Figure 2). Bidirectional arrows in the thematic map reflect the iterative nature of the relationships between organizing themes.

The thematic synthesis and coding were primarily conducted by the first author, who approached the data from a constructivist perspective, acknowledging the active role of the researcher in interpreting meaning. Each stage of the process was discussed with the second author. The coding process included regular meetings to review code structures and emergent themes. Consensus on theme development was achieved through reflexive discussion with the second author offering oversight on theme development and interpretation (see Thomas and Harden, 2008). Disagreements or uncertainties were resolved through discussion, revisiting source data, and checking for consistency with the inclusion criteria and the wider literature.

Each analytical theme and its descriptive themes will be presented in turn.

In line with existing literature, varied terminologies, such as EBSA, school refusal, and chronic non-attendance were used by researchers in framing studies and gathering participants' views, reflecting subtle conceptual differences in understanding attendance difficulties (Kearney et al., 2019). For example, in Gren-Landell et al. (2015) the term “problematic school absenteeism” is presented to participants, and school staff identified factors such as adverse home environments, including permissive parenting styles and exposure to family conflict or violence, as primary contributors. Conversely, the concept of “EBSA” in studies by Corcoran et al. (2022) and Chian et al. (2024) situated non-attendance as emotionally driven, and staff described within child and environmental factors. Staff in these studies emphasized the importance of building supportive relationships, understanding triggers, and adapting school routines to ease students' anxieties. This framing correlated with staff describing close collaboration with families and external professionals, working collectively to create an environment that fosters belonging and reduces stress. Furthermore, “emotionally based” conceptualisations appeared to facilitate staff describing students' non-attendance as intrinsically aligned with anxiety (Ford, 2018). This led to therapeutic approaches being described as a core facet of addressing student non-attendance (Devenney and O'Toole, 2021). When no firm non-attendance conceptualization was established in the rationale of the studies under review, school staff still viewed non-attendance as a complex, eco-systemic issue, aligning with existing research (Nuttall and Woods, 2013; Kearney et al., 2019). While it remains unclear how much of the researcher's conceptualisations of non-attendance were shared with participants, increased reflexivity about non-attendance terminology is needed (Havik and Ingul, 2021): this review has found the theoretical positioning of school non-attendance by researchers is likely to influence how other professionals and school staff interpret the causes of student non-attendance, and therefore, how they may respond to them.

The increased focus on school attendance issues in England is illustrated by Department for Education (2023) data, which highlights a significant rise in persistent non-attendance rates, from 10.9% before the COVID-19 pandemic to over 21% in 2022/23. For students with special educational needs, the rate is even more pronounced, with 36.6% reported as persistently absent in the same period. These statistics suggest a need to address attendance issues across diverse student populations, particularly those with additional needs, who may be at heightened risk for negative long-term outcomes associated with attendance difficulties (Sonuga-Barke and Fearon, 2021). Current attendance monitoring systems, however, often fail to capture the underlying reasons for non-attendance, underscoring the importance of qualitative, school-based perspectives that offer valuable insights into the complex, varied factors influencing student attendance (Corcoran et al., 2024; Sawyer and Collingwood, 2024).

Within-child factors, particularly anxiety and mental health difficulties, were consistently identified by staff as critical barriers to school attendance, an enduring trend reflected in existing literature (Kearney and Albano, 2004; Lereya et al., 2019). School staff frequently describe attendance difficulties as originating in episodes of panic or prolonged anxiety, an interpretation that resonates with findings from Havik and Ingul (2021), who discuss the relationship between anxiety-related avoidance and prolonged absenteeism. Additionally, special educational needs were seen by staff as intensifying attendance difficulties. SEN students often face academic environments that lack the necessary accommodations (Nnamani and Lomer, 2024), for example curricula which fail to account for neurodevelopmental needs exacerbating disengagement (Azpitarte and Holt, 2024). This review also reveals school staffs' frustrations with limited resources and curriculum rigidity, which they felt can restrict their ability to adapt classroom environments to fully support students with additional needs.

The role of family environment in influencing attendance is also a well-established theme in the literature (Kearney, 2008). Staff frequently attribute non-attendance to permissive or unstructured home environments, suggesting that a lack of routine or support for school routines can destabilize students' commitment to school. Within the wider literature, school staff often perceive home-life as a primary driver of challenging student behavior (Carroll et al., 2023). The findings of this review offer some challenge to this assertion: while some school staff emphasized factors external to school (e.g., Gren-Landell et al., 2015), others gave a more eco-systemic conceptualization of school non-attendance, despite initial focus on home-life factors (e.g., Ford, 2018). This divergence may reflect differences in teacher attributions, as highlighted in the broader literature on educator perceptions. For instance, Weiner's (1985) attribution theory suggests that teachers may frame challenges like non-attendance based on perceived controllability and locus of causality. Educators who attribute non-attendance to external factors, such as home-life challenges, may perceive these issues as beyond their control, leading to less focus on school-based interventions. Conversely, those adopting an eco-systemic view may be influenced by growing awareness of the interplay between systemic and individual factors, as suggested by Havik and Ingul (2021) prompting them to consider broader contextual influences. Increasingly, school staff share many of the frustrations about the school environment itself reflected by parents and families (Lissack and Boyle, 2022). This positions parent-school partnerships as crucial for supporting children and young people experiencing attendance difficulties, as effective collaboration would seem to be a key factor in bridging the gap between home and school expectations (Corcoran et al., 2022).

Among school-based factors, academic pressures were cited as significant contributors to student absenteeism by school staff, echoing findings that link the pursuit of high-stakes academic performance with increased student stress (Pascoe et al., 2020). Staff frequently observed that students become overwhelmed by testing pressures, leading to avoidance behaviors that escalate into consistent absenteeism. This aligns with Gulliford's (2015) assertion that secondary students, in particular, face heightened risks of school refusal linked to examination-related stress, which can ultimately impact their overall health and wellbeing. The curriculums school staff were working within were noted as attendance to particularly for students with SEN or those who struggled with traditional academic content. This review reveals that staff often see the curriculum as misaligned with the diverse needs of their students, a challenge previously identified by Liasidou (2012) who argues that curriculum diversification, including vocational and experiential learning opportunities, can enhance engagement. Staff perceive that rigid curricular structures exclude some students, reinforcing the importance of more adaptable educational pathways to improve attendance.

Peer rejection and social isolation were also highlighted as attendance barriers, with staff noting that bullying or lack of social belonging often pushes students away from the school environment. Korpershoek et al.'s (2020) meta-analytic review underscores the role of positive peer and adult relationships and school belonging in reducing attendance difficulties. The participants in the studies reviewed here spoke about the power of taking a relational approach with students. Building positive relationships with families is also referenced across the literature as important in providing useful EBSA support (Nuttall and Woods, 2013; Kearney and Graczyk, 2014) and building positive relationships with parents and carers assists with identifying the emerging signs of EBSA, which in turn can facilitate early interventions at a school and familial level (Ingul et al., 2019).

The review highlights how supporting non-attenders can take an emotional toll on school staff, manifesting in stress, role ambiguity, and resource strain. Staff reported that non-attendance support often demands a parental-like role, creating confusion around professional boundaries and stretching their emotional capacities, especially when they lack the training to navigate mental health issues. The reported barriers to student support within teacher roles are similar to those found by previous research (Graham et al., 2011; Mazzer and Rickwood, 2015), including excessive workloads, inflexible curriculums and external pressures on student attainment; limited support from school leaders about these pressures were found to further compound the negative effect of these factors on teachers' self-efficacy to support the wellbeing of children at school.

The findings of this review therefore map closely onto the Multi-Dimensional Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MD-MTSS) model proposed by Kearney and Graczyk (2020), particularly at Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels. School staff consistently described practices such as fostering strong relationships, adapting expectations, identifying early signs of distress, and maintaining close home–school communication, which are core features of Tier 1 prevention and engagement. Likewise, targeted responses for students with emerging needs, including individualized timetables, tailored emotional support, and curriculum adaptations, reflect Tier 2 selective interventions aimed at preventing escalation. While many of these practices are consistent with the MD-MTSS model, they were often informal or fragmented, rather than embedded in a formalized multi-tiered system. Few studies explicitly referenced a systemic framework for supporting attendance, suggesting a gap between implicit practice and structured implementation. Embedding MD-MTSS principles more formally in school policy could help strengthen coherence, ensure equity of support, and sustain staff capacity to respond proactively to attendance difficulties.

While this review focuses on school staff perspectives, it is important to consider how these align with student views. Research by Corcoran and Kelly (2023) and Hejl et al. (2024) has synthesized the voices of students experiencing school attendance problems, highlighting feelings of anxiety, social isolation, and a lack of understanding from adults. Students frequently report difficulty articulating their needs and often describe a sense of being pushed without support (e.g., “They just wanted to know why I didn't go to school, but I didn't know why, and I still don't know” Åhslund, 2021). These findings echo concerns raised by school staff in the current review, particularly around relational breakdowns, academic pressure, and insufficient systemic flexibility. However, students have also challenged the deficit-based framing of their experiences (e.g., “refusal”; Corcoran and Kelly, 2023), suggesting a disconnect in how their behaviors are interpreted. This underlines the need for greater co-construction of attendance support and more participatory approaches that include student voices when addressing school attendance difficulties. Future research could explore points of convergence and divergence between staff and student perspectives to support more holistic, context-sensitive interventions.