Intervention programs designed to promote healthy romantic relationships in youth: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic literature review of intervention programs designed to promote healthy romantic relationships in youth (aged 12-25 years). The focus was on universal interventions that have the potential to be effective and widely implemented. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Social Science Database, and Embase. Articles were included if they were a randomized controlled trial (RCT) or quasi-experimental study and reported on a universal intervention aimed at promoting healthy romantic relationship knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among youth. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 27 studies (26,212 participants). Interventions were found to be effective for improving healthy romantic relationship knowledge in the target population. However, the findings were mixed for intervention effectiveness in changing relationship attitudes/beliefs, and there was limited evidence to support change across behavioral outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the need for future research, including high quality RCTs with longer follow-up periods in a broad range of cultural and ethnic settings, to improve the generalisability of findings. Interventions for adolescents that improve knowledge and behavioral change relating to healthy romantic relationships have the potential to reduce mental and physical health problems during this phase of development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".