ArticleChildren and youth services review2021
Stakeholder perspectives on the implementation of shared decision making to empower youth who have experienced commercial sexual exploitation.
Article in Children and youth services review, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experiences Implementing a Suite of Decision Aids for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Qualitative Insights From the DECIDE-ICD Trial.Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2022Trial
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveShared decision making (SDM) has been proposed as a method to improve treatment adherence, placement stability, and other youth-centric outcomes for children who have been victims of commercial sexual exploitation (CSEC). This project seeks to characterize service providers' perspectives on the adoption and implementation of SDM into treatment and placement planning decisions.
methodSixteen key stakeholders who provide services for youth who have experienced CSEC in a Southern city, as well as adults who survived exploitation as children, were individually interviewed. These interviews focused on stakeholders' perspective on the appropriateness and contextual considerations regarding implementing this model to engage youth in decision-making conversations. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analyzed using group-based inductive content analysis.
resultWhile all participants acknowledged the philosophical importance of including youth in decision-making, perspectives varied on how this philosophy could be operationalized. Trauma-bonds to offenders, distrust in service systems, and policy and time constraints were discussed as potential barriers to implementation. Perceived benefits to applying this model included encouraging youth empowerment, helping youth develop decision-making skills, and strengthening relationships between youth and providers. Implementation considerations mirrored those seen in other medical and behavioral health settings, including extensive training, fidelity monitoring, enforcement through policy and legislation, and ultimately resetting the culture of services to be maximally youth inclusive.
conclusionParticipants supported the use of SDM to standardize the inclusion of youth in treatment and placement planning decisions. However, there exist challenges in defining exactly how to adopt this approach, and how to implement broad-scale cultural change within the service-providing community.
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.