ArticlePloS one2020
Grassroots community actors leading the way in the prevention of youth violent radicalization.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- PROTOCOL: Primary Interventions for Preventing Cognitive and Behavioral Radicalization: An Evidence and Gap Map.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Review
- Non-Criminal Justice Interventions for Countering Cognitive and Behavioural Radicalisation Amongst Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Effectiveness and Implementation: A Systematic Review.Campbell systematic reviews · 2025Review
- PROTOCOL: Non-criminal justice interventions for countering cognitive and behavioural radicalisation amongst children and adolescents: A systematic review of effectiveness and implementation.Campbell systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Is radicalization a family issue? A systematic review of family-related risk and protective factors, consequences, and interventions against radicalization.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Violence-free family ties, non-violent peers or attachment to society have been pointed out as protective factors against different types of extremism and violent radicalization by international literature. However, more detail needs to be provided about which specific aspects within these realms (friendship/family/community) are effective in challenging violence and how they operate in practice. Recent research conducted under the framework of the PROTON project (Horizon 2020) has analyzed the social and ethical impacts of counter-terrorism and organized crime policies in six European countries. In this article we discuss some identified common features among practices that, developed by organized actors operating at the local level (e.g.: grassroots-based associations, educational institutions, other type of organized networks for prevention, NGOs), are contributing to preventing youth violent radicalization, a phenomenon of growing concern in Europe and beyond. Standing on a solid rejection to violence, these shared features are the following: a bottom-up approach in setting allies with key stakeholders from the community or/and family members to intervene; the promotion of trustworthy and healthy friendship relationships; debunking the lure surrounding violent subjects ("false heroes") and violence in the different contexts, especially in the socioeducational one.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.