Protecting and Promoting: An Integrative Conceptual Model for Healthy Development of Adolescents

Kia‐Keating, Maryam; Dowdy, Erin; Morgan, Melissa L.; Noam, Gil G.

doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.08.006

Cited by 147 publications

(144 citation statements)

References 106 publications

(124 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

142

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…50,86,[113][114][115][116][117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126] One report was led by Canadian authors 117 and one by authors from Hong Kong. 122 All other reports were led by authors from the USA.…”

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…122 All other reports were led by authors from the USA. 50,86,[113][114][115][116][118][119][120][121][123][124][125][126] One report which described theory of change was also included in our review of process and outcome evaluations, 86 but all other theory reports did not report on empirical evaluations of PYD interventions. Four reports were led by Benson [113][114][115][116] and two by Lerner and Lerner.…”

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine of the reports largely focused on developing normative theory, [113][114][115][116]119,[122][123][124][125] which asserted the value of PYD in focusing on the development of assets rather than merely the prevention of risk behaviours, albeit with some discussion of causality too. Six reports largely focused on causal theory, which aimed to describe the mechanisms by which PYD might promote benefits, 50,117,118,120,121,126 and one report gave attention to both normative and causal elements. 86 Rather than limit synthesis to causal theories, we decided to broaden this to include normative theorising because we felt that this enabled a clearer specification of the assumptions that lie behind PYD interventions.…”

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The effects of Positive Youth Development interventions on substance use, violence and inequalities: systematic review of theories of change, processes and outcomes

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPositive Youth Development (PYD) delivered outside school aims to enable young people to develop positive assets such as relationships and confidence, rather than to merely address risk. Existing reviews of PYD effects on substance use or violence are old and unsystematic.ObjectivesTo systematically review evidence to answer the following questions: what theories of change inform PYD interventions addressing substance use and violence? What characteristics of participants and contexts are identified as barriers to and facilitators of implementation and receipt in process evaluations of PYD? What is the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of PYD in reducing substance use and violence? What characteristics of participants and contexts appear to moderate, or are necessary and sufficient for, PYD effectiveness?Data sourcesA total of 21 bibliographic databases; 35 websites and contacting authors.Review methodsWe included reports published in English since 1985 and reporting on theories of change, as well as process, outcome and economic evaluations of PYD targeting 11- to 18-year-olds and addressing substance use or violence. References were screened on title/abstract and, where appropriate, on full report. Data extraction and quality assessment used Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre and Cochrane tools. Theories of change and process evaluations were qualitatively metasynthesised. Outcome evaluations were synthesised narratively and meta-analytically.Results32,394 unique references were identified and 48 were included. A total of 16 reports described theories, 13 (10 studies) evaluated processes and 25 (10 studies) evaluated outcomes.Theories of changePYD interventions aim to offer opportunities for young people to develop positive ‘assets’ such as skills and confidence. These are theorised to promote and be promoted by young people’s ‘intentional self-regulation’, which involves reflecting on behaviour; determining goals; using existing resources to pursue these; and redirecting effort when thwarted. This enables ‘developmental regulation’, namely individuals capitalising on other opportunities to promote personal development. Positive assets thus accrued reduce health risks by reducing the impact on individuals of environmental risk or by ameliorating the impact of such risks. The literature offers limited insights beyond these general ideas.Process evaluationsCommunity engagement ensured that programmes were accessible and appealing. Staff capacity and continuity were crucial factors but often challenging when programmes could not offer full-time jobs. Tensions arose between a desire to empower participants to choose activities and a requirement for them to undertake a breadth of activities.Outcome evaluationsMeta-analyses of all combined outcomes and of short-term alcohol use, illicit drug use and smoking found no significant effects. There were small, statistically significant, short-term effects for an omnibus measure of substance use and for violence. We could not undertake metaregression to assess sociodemographic moderators but narrative synthesis suggested no clear pattern of effects by sex. We found no economic evaluations.LimitationsInsufficient studies precluded qualitative comparative analyses.ConclusionsHow PYD might promote health is currently undertheorised. Implementation can be challenging. We found little evidence that current PYD interventions delivered outside school reduce substance use or violence. However, these may not constitute a test of the effectiveness of the PYD model, as some included interventions that, although meeting our inclusion criteria, were not exemplars of PYD.Future workFurther evaluations should assess interventions employing PYD theory of change.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005439.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.

show abstract

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of Positive Youth Development interventions on substance use, violence and inequalities: systematic review of theories of change, processes and outcomes

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To the extent that the results of this study apply broadly to other populations, it suggests that the balanced risk and resilience perspective offered by Kia-Keating et al (2011) may be instructive. Their model places more emphasis on early prevention and intervention programs, which would be particularly true if PHR, risk behaviors, and connectedness are all have origins in common risk factors.…”

Section: Implications For Research and Practicementioning

confidence: 86%

“…To investigate if SC functioned as a protective or promotive factor, it was necessary to approach the problem from a person-focused perspective; hence, we first formed dichotomous categories (high and low) for SC (based on RYDM-SS scores) and PHR (based on BESS scores). Low PHR were T scores ≤ 60 on the BESS, which are considered to be in the normal range and high PHR scores were T scores ≥ 61, which are considered to represent elevated mental health risk (Dowdy et al, 2011). The levels of SC were taken from a CHKS-RYDM normative study (Furlong et al, 2009).…”

Section: Data Analysis Planmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring the Protective and Promotive Effects of School Connectedness on the Relation between Psychological Health Risk and Problem Behaviors/Experiences

Furlong¹,

Sharkey²,

Quirk³

et al. 2011

JEDP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The broad construct of school connectedness has been identified as a developmental protective factor due to its association with lower involvement in a variety of problem behaviors. However, resilience research differentiates between protective (lower frequency of problem behaviors primarily in the presence of high risk) and promotive (lower frequency of problem behaviors primarily in conditions of low risk) developmental influences, and this has been an understudied aspect of school connectedness. This study examined the potential protective and promotive influences of school connectedness in a sample of 3,220 students in Grades 8, 10, and 12 from four California school districts. These youths completed self-reports of their psychological health risk, perceptions of school connectedness, and involvement in problem behaviors/experiences. Taking a person-focused data analysis approach, a series of multinomial logistic regressions found that although school connectedness was protective for involvement in problem behaviors/experiences, more support was found for its promotive influences. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

show abstract

What am I ‘living’ with? Growing up with HIV in Uganda and Zimbabwe

Bernays¹,

Seeley²,

Rhodes³

et al. 2015

Children, Health and Well‐being

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protecting and Promoting: An Integrative Conceptual Model for Healthy Development of Adolescents

Cited by 147 publications

References 106 publications

The effects of Positive Youth Development interventions on substance use, violence and inequalities: systematic review of theories of change, processes and outcomes

The effects of Positive Youth Development interventions on substance use, violence and inequalities: systematic review of theories of change, processes and outcomes

Exploring the Protective and Promotive Effects of School Connectedness on the Relation between Psychological Health Risk and Problem Behaviors/Experiences

What am I ‘living’ with? Growing up with HIV in Uganda and Zimbabwe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About