MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211042276 · doi:10.4073/csr.2016.5

Interventions for promoting reintegration and reducing harmful behaviour and lifestyles in street‐connected children and young people: a systematic review

2016· review· en· W4211042276 on OpenAlexaff
Esther Coren, Rosa Hossain, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Brittany Bakker

Bibliographic record

VenueCampbell Systematic Reviews · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
FundersCanterbury Christ Church University
KeywordsPsychological interventionHarm reductionMedicineAbstinenceCondomGerontologyPsychologyEnvironmental healthFamily medicineNursingPsychiatryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review assessed the effectiveness of interventions for improving outcomes among street‐connected children and young people, and for reducing some important health‐related risks; and to improve access to and integration into society, education, and employment opportunities. Eligible study designs compare outcomes from interventions for street‐connected children and young people aimed at reintegration, education, employment, improving health and/or harm reduction, and provision of shelter, versus a comparison group (e.g. shelter/drop‐in service as usual). The review identified 13 studies evaluating 19 interventions. All studies were conducted in the USA except one (South Korea). The outcome for integration was not measured in included studies. The same was the case for education and employment related outcomes – none of the included studies measured literacy, numeracy, or participation in education or skills‐based employment. Several studies measured health‐related outcomes. Five studies investigate the effect of interventions to encourage safe or reduced sexual activity (e.g. numbers of partners, frequency of sex, HIV knowledge, unprotected sex, condom use and rates of abstinence). The results are mixed, lacking enough evidence to support any of the interventions. Eight studies report outcomes of interventions promoting safe or reduced substance use. The outcomes used a variety of measures in different studies at various times making it difficult to get a clear overview. The overall effect was mixed; some studies report positive effect and the others reported negative or no effect. Three studies investigate the effect of family therapy on substance abuse and report improvements in some of the measures. Eight studies investigate the effect of therapeutic interventions to improve mental health (including self‐esteem and depression) in street‐connected kids. In general, there is no significant improvement in the intervention group compared to the control group. In some instances, both groups improved from the baseline. Finally, two studies investigate the effect of family‐based approaches on family functioning. No differences were found between intervention and control conditions on most of the outcome measures used. Plain language summary Lack of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to reintegrate street‐connected children There are a range of interventions to improve the integration and well‐being of street‐connected children, yet no studies measure integration, education or employment outcomes. There appears to be no effect on and mixed evidence for mental health. There may be reductions in substance abuse. What is this review about? Millions of street‐connected children throughout the world are at risk of exploitation, violence, substance abuse, and health problems, and are not receiving skills‐based education. Interventions to promote access to education, healthy and settled lifestyles, and reduction of risks are intended to give this group a better chance in life and prevent marginalization from society. What is the aim of this review? This review assessed the effectiveness of interventions for improving outcomes among street‐connected children and young people, and for reducing some important health‐related risks; and to improve access to and integration into society, education, and employment opportunities. This review investigates the effects of interventions for street‐connected children to promote integration to the society, skills‐based education, prospects of employment and health risk reduction. What are the main findings of this review? What studies are included? Eligible study designs compare outcomes from interventions for street‐connected children and young people aimed at reintegration, education, employment, improving health and/or harm reduction, and provision of shelter, versus a comparison group (e.g. shelter/drop‐in service as usual). The review identified 13 studies evaluating 19 interventions. All studies were conducted in the USA except one (South Korea). The outcome for integration was not measured in included studies. The same was the case for education and employment related outcomes – none of the included studies measured literacy, numeracy, or participation in education or skills‐based employment. Several studies measured health‐related outcomes. Five studies investigate the effect of interventions to encourage safe or reduced sexual activity (e.g. numbers of partners, frequency of sex, HIV knowledge, unprotected sex, condom use and rates of abstinence). The results are mixed, lacking enough evidence to support any of the interventions. Eight studies report outcomes of interventions promoting safe or reduced substance use. The outcomes used a variety of measures in different studies at various times making it difficult to get a clear overview. The overall effect was mixed; some studies report positive effect and the others reported negative or no effect. Three studies investigate the effect of family therapy on substance abuse and report improvements in some of the measures. Eight studies investigate the effect of therapeutic interventions to improve mental health (including self‐esteem and depression) in street‐connected kids. In general, there is no significant improvement in the intervention group compared to the control group. In some instances, both groups improved from the baseline. Finally, two studies investigate the effect of family‐based approaches on family functioning. No differences were found between intervention and control conditions on most of the outcome measures used. What was the quality of the evidence? The quality of evidence was from low (i.e. for risk reduction in sexual activity and family therapy) to moderate (i.e. mental health improvement, harm reduction in substance abuse). What do the findings of this review mean? There is a dearth of evidence from controlled trials on interventions to improve integration of street‐connected children and young adults into society and providing skills‐based education. The evidence from health interventions aimed at engaging in safe sexual practices, and at improving mental health vary widely and are inconclusive as to their effectiveness. Some of the interventions aimed at reducing the risk of substance abuse may be effective. Further research in this area will be useful in understanding the effectiveness of these approaches and validating the effect of some of the interventions that are supported by moderate evidence. How up‐to‐date is this review? The review authors searched for relevant studies until April 2015. This Campbell review was published in 2016. Abstract Background Millions of street‐connected children and young people worldwide live or work in street environments. They are vulnerable to many risks, whether or not they remain connected to families of origin, and despite many strengths and resiliencies, they are excluded from mainstream social structures and opportunities. Objectives Primary research objectives To evaluate and summarise the effectiveness of interventions for street‐connected children and young people that aim to: promote inclusion and reintegration; increase literacy and numeracy;

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCampbell Systematic ReviewsSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207