MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393949712 · doi:10.1007/s44202-024-00147-0

Effective strategies and interventions for engaging at-risk youth: a rapid systematic review of the literature

2024· article· en· W4393949712 on OpenAlexaff
Alexa J. Toews, Nicole Letourneau, Carrie Pohl, Kim Ruse

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionSystematic reviewPsychologyPolitical scienceMEDLINEPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose Family violence, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, and exposure to intimate partner violence, has been linked to mental health problems and increased substance abuse in youth. This rapid systematic review evaluated the most recent literature on effective strategies and/or interventions to engage youth at-risk due to family violence, mental health problems, and/or substance abuse. Methods A rapid systematic review of the literature on engaging youth identified as at-risk for mental health difficulties, substance abuse, or family violence in interventions was undertaken. Searches were run in PsycINFO, CINAHL, SocINDEX, Family & Society Studies Worldwide and Social Work Abstracts. To be included, studies had to be quantitative or qualitative, examine youth-targeted strategies aimed at increasing engagement with interventions and have a target population aged between 12 to 18 years old. Studies published prior to 2014 were excluded. Results A total of 13 studies were retrieved that included 2,527 high-risk youth. Strategies were identified and categorized based on the following themes: (1) Technology-based, (2) Experiential therapy-based, (3) Counselling-based, (4) Program-based and (5) Other engagement strategies. Technology-based, experiential therapy-based and program-based strategies showed high levels of engagement in at-risk youth. Counselling-based strategies demonstrated variable outcomes between studies. Conclusions Many of the engagement strategies retrieved in this evidence assessment were reported to be successful, suggesting that there is no single best approach to engaging at-risk youth. A variety of strategies can be combined and tailored to fit the individual needs of youth and the resources available to the intervention program at that time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.341 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover PsychologySame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207