Systematic review and meta-analysis of effects of community-delivered positive youth development interventions on violence outcomes

Abstract

BackgroundWe systematically reviewed and meta-analysed evaluations testing the effectiveness of positive youth development (PYD) interventions for reducing violence in young people.MethodsTwo reviewers working independently screened records, assessed full-text studies for inclusion and extracted data. Outcomes were transformed to Cohen's d. Quality assessment of included evaluations was undertaken using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Effect sizes were combined using multilevel meta-analysis. We searched 21 databases, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and CENTRAL, and hand-searched key journals and websites. We included studies where the majority of participants were aged 11–18 years and where interventions were delivered in community (not clinical or judicial) settings outside of normal school hours. We excluded studies targeting predefined physical and mental health conditions or parents/carers alongside young people. We defined violence as perpetration or victimisation of physical violence including violent crime.ResultsThree randomised trials were included in this systematic review. Included evaluations each had design flaws. Meta-analyses suggested that PYD interventions did not have a statistically significant effect on violence outcomes across all time points (d=0.021, 95% CI −0.050 to 0.093), though interventions did have a statistically significant short-term effect (d=0.076, 95% CI 0.013 to 0.140).ConclusionsOur meta-analyses do not offer evidence of PYD interventions in general having effects of public health significance in reducing violence among young people. Evaluations did not consistently report theories of change or implementation fidelity, so it is unclear if our meta-analyses provide evidence that the PYD theory of change is ineffective in reducing violence among young people.

‘Measuring’ Physical Literacy and Related Constructs: A Systematic Review of Empirical Findings

“…Recent attention has emphasized the benefits of systematic reviews, which provide rigorous and transparent methods as a means of minimizing bias and offering a complete coherent overview of contemporary knowledge on a topic [ 56 , 57 ]. While rigorous and transparent, the analytic steps and presentation of findings in systematic reviews can vary, to address “research questions in different ways with each method” [ 58 ].…”

Transforming Mental Health Delivery Through Behavioral Economics and Implementation Science: Protocol for Three Exploratory Projects

“…The risk of premature mortality of people with severe psychiatric disorders is elevated [2], and the annual burden to the US economy is approximately half a trillion dollars, less than half of which is due to the cost of treatment [3]. Efficacious treatments are not consistently deployed in community practice, and clinical outcomes are attenuated compared with those achieved in clinical trials [4-6]. A major frontier for mental health services research is to develop effective and cost-effective strategies that increase the use of evidence-based assessment, prevention, and treatment approaches in community settings [7].…”

Transforming Mental Health Delivery Through Behavioral Economics and Implementation Science: Protocol for Three Exploratory Projects (Preprint)

“…The risk of premature mortality of people with severe psychiatric disorders is elevated [2], and the annual burden to the US economy is approximately half a trillion dollars, less than half of which is due to the cost of treatment [3]. Efficacious treatments are not consistently deployed in community practice, and clinical outcomes are attenuated compared with those achieved in clinical trials [4][5][6]. A major frontier for mental health services research is to develop effective and cost-effective strategies that increase the use of evidence-based assessment, prevention, and treatment approaches in community settings [7].…”