Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27624886›Full record

SynthesisAustralian and New Zealand journal of public health2017

The quality and effectiveness of interventions that target multiple risk factors among young people: a systematic review.

Alice Knight, Anthony Shakeshaft, Alys Havard, Myfanwy Maple, Catherine Foley, Bernie Shakeshaft

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Exploring Community-Based Options for Reducing Youth Crime.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Transition to Employment Program (SUPER) for Youth at Risk: A Conceptual and Practical Model.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Alice KnightNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC), UNSW Australia, New South Wales.
Anthony ShakeshaftNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC), UNSW Australia, New South Wales.
Alys HavardNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC), UNSW Australia, New South Wales.
Myfanwy MapleSchool of Health, University of New England, New South Wales.
Catherine FoleyNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (NDARC), UNSW Australia, New South Wales.
Bernie ShakeshaftBackTrack, New South Wales.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify evaluations of interventions that target multiple risk factors in high-risk young people, describe their characteristics, critique their methodological quality and summarise their effectiveness.

methodsA search of the literature published between 2009 and 2014 identified 13 evaluations of interventions that targeted multiple risk factors, compared to 95 evaluations that targeted single risk factors. The methodological adequacy of the 13 evaluation studies was analysed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and information regarding characteristics and intervention effectiveness was extracted and summarised.

resultsThere were very few outcome evaluation studies of interventions that targeted multiple risk factors, relative to single risk factors, among high-risk young people. Of the identified studies, half were methodologically weak. Interventions delivered in community settings targeted a greater number of risk factors, while those delivered in a school or health setting reported a higher proportion of statistically significant outcomes. No economic analyses were conducted. Conclusions and Implications for Public Health: More methodologically rigorous evaluations of interventions targeting multiple risk factors among high-risk young people are required, especially for those delivered in community settings. Four key areas for improvement are: i) more precisely defining the risk factors experienced by high-risk young people; ii) achieving greater consistency across interventions; iii) standardising outcome measures; and iv) conducting economic analyses.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareRisk-TakingVulnerable PopulationsAdolescentAdolescent BehaviorHumansJuvenile DelinquencyRisk FactorsStudentsat-risk young peoplehigh-risk young peopleinterventionsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27624886
PMCPMC5298033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.