Protective factors, risk factors, and intervention strategies in the prevention and reduction of crime among adolescents and young adults aged 12–24 years: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that criminal behaviour in youth is linked with a range of negative physical, mental, and social health consequences. Despite a global decrease over the last 30 years, youth crime remains prevalent. Identifying and mapping the most robust risk and protective factors, and intervention strategies for youth crime could offer important keys for predicting future offense outcomes and assist in developing effective preventive and early intervention strategies. Current reviews in the area do not include literature discussing at risk populations such as First Nations groups from countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This is a critical gap given the disproportionally high rates of incarceration and youth detention among First Nations people globally, particularly in countries with a colonial past. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the key risk and protective factors, along with intervention strategies, that are essential for recognizing adolescents and young adults at risk of crime. METHODS: This scoping review protocol has been developed in line with the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewers' Manual. The review protocol was preregistered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/kg4q3). ProQuest, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycInfo were used to retrieve relevant articles. Grey literature was searched using Google searches and ProQuest dissertations databases. Original research articles examining protective factors, risk factors, and intervention strategies for prevention and reduction of crime in 12-24-year-olds were included. Two independent reviewers conducted eligibility decisions and data extraction. Findings has been reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. CONCLUSION: Anticipated findings suggest that current research has extensively examined factors across all levels of the socioecological model, from individual to community levels, revealing a predominant focus on individual-level predictors such as substance use, prior criminal history, and moral development. The review is expected to identify effective interventions that address critical factors within each domain, including Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC), which have shown promise in reducing youth crime. Additionally, it will likely highlight significant trends in risk and protective factors, such as the dual role of academic achievement-both as a risk and protective factor-and the impact of family-based interventions. The review will also address gaps in research, particularly regarding Indigenous youth, underscoring the need for targeted studies to better understand their unique challenges. These findings will guide future research and inform the development of comprehensive prevention and early intervention programs tailored to diverse youth populations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.090 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".