Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33220790›Full record

SynthesisThe Lancet. Child & adolescent health2021

Adolescent dating violence prevention programmes: a global systematic review of evaluation studies.

H Luz McNaughton Reyes, Laurie M Graham, May S Chen, Deborah Baron, Andrew Gibbs, Alison K Groves, Lusajo Kajula, Sarah Bowler, Suzanne Maman

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Lancet. Child & adolescent health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

H Luz McNaughton ReyesDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: mcnaught@email.unc.edu.
Laurie M GrahamSchool of Social Work, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA.
May S ChenDivision of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Deborah BaronDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Andrew GibbsGender and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Durban, South Africa.
Alison K GrovesDepartment of Community Health and Prevention, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Lusajo KajulaUNICEF Office of Research, Florence, Italy.
Sarah BowlerDepartment of Community Health and Prevention, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Suzanne MamanDepartment of Health Behavior, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

Intramural CDC HHS CC999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adolescent dating violence negatively affects millions of young people worldwide. Through a global systematic review, we synthesised evidence from rigorous studies of prevention programmes for adolescent dating violence. Our aims were to: (1) describe the breadth of research in this area and evidence of programme effects, and (2) identify gaps in the evidence base. We included experimental and controlled quasi-experimental programme evaluations, published before Jan 1, 2020, that assessed effects on victimisation or perpetration, or both, in adolescent dating violence and in which at least half of the study population was 10-19 years old. Study design, programme elements, and outcomes were compared between evaluations implemented in high-income countries (HICs) and low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). 52 evaluations met inclusion criteria, of which 20 (38%) were implemented in LMICs. Evaluations in HICs were more likely to assess effects on adolescent dating violence victimisation and perpetration, rather than just victimisation, than those in LMICs, and they were also more likely to include boys and girls, as opposed to just a single sex. Overall, 26 (50%) of the 52 evaluations reported a significant preventive effect on at least one outcome for adolescent dating violence, of which nine were implemented in LMICs. Across LMICs and HICs, findings suggest research is needed to shed light on how adolescent dating violence prevention programmes work and to identify whether programme effects generalise across different settings, outcomes, and subgroups. TRANSLATIONS: For the Chinese, French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Indexed as

AdolescentBullyingChildCrime VictimsEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleHumansIntimate Partner ViolenceMaleRisk FactorsSocioeconomic FactorsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID33220790
PMCPMC9272992

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.