Article

Interventions for promoting reintegration and reducing harmful behaviour and lifestyles in street-connected children and young people

Research Centre for Children, Families and Communities, Canterbury Christ Church University, North Holmes Road, Canterbury, Kent, UK, CT1 1QU.
Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (Impact Factor: 5.94). 01/2013; 2(2):CD009823. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009823.pub2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Numbers of street-connected children and young people run into many millions worldwide and include children and young people who live or work in street environments. Whether or not they remain connected to their families of origin, and despite many strengths and resiliencies, they are vulnerable to a range of risks and are excluded from mainstream social structures and opportunities.
To summarise the effectiveness of interventions for street-connected children and young people that promote inclusion and reintegration and reduce harms. To explore the processes of successful intervention and models of change in this area, and to understand how intervention effectiveness may vary in different contexts..
We searched the following bibliographic databases, from inception to 2012, and various relevant non-governmental and organisational websites: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE and PreMEDLINE; EMBASE and EMBASE Classic; CINAHL; PsycINFO; ERIC; Sociological Abstracts; Social Services Abstracts; Social Work Abstracts; Healthstar; LILACS; System for Grey literature in Europe (OpenGrey); ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; EconLit; IDEAS Economics and Finance Research; JOLIS Library Catalog of the holdings of the World Bank Group and IMF Libraries; BLDS (British Library for Development Studies); Google, Google Scholar.
The review included data from harm reduction or reintegration promotion intervention studies that used a comparison group study design and were all randomised or quasi-randomised studies. Studies were included if they evaluated interventions aimed to benefit street-connected children and young people, aged 0 to 24 years, in all contexts.
Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Data were extracted on intervention delivery, context, process factors, equity and outcomes. Outcome measures were grouped according to whether they measured psychosocial outcomes, risky sexual behaviours or substance use. A meta-analysis was conducted for some outcomes though it was not possible for all due to differences in measurements between studies. Other outcomes were evaluated narratively.
We included 11 studies evaluating 12 interventions from high income countries. We did not find any sufficiently robust evaluations conducted in low and middle income countries (LMICs) despite the existence of many relevant programmes. Study quality overall was low to moderate and there was great variation in the measurement used by studies, making comparison difficult. Participants were drop-in and shelter based. We found no consistent results on a range of relevant outcomes within domains of psychosocial health, substance misuse and sexual risky behaviours despite the many measurements collected in the studies. The interventions being evaluated consisted of time limited therapeutically based programmes which did not prove more effective than standard shelter or drop-in services for most outcomes and in most studies. There were favourable changes from baseline in outcomes for most particpants in therapy interventions and also in standard services. There was considerable heterogeneity between studies and equity data were inconsistently reported. No study measured the primary outcome of reintegration or reported on adverse effects. The review discussion section included consideration of the relevance of the findings for LMIC settings.
Analysis across the included studies found no consistently significant benefit for the 'new' interventions compared to standard services for street-connected children and young people. These latter interventions, however, have not been rigorously evaluated, especially in the context of LMICs. Robustly evaluating the interventions would enable better recommendations to be made for service delivery. There is a need for future research in LMICs that includes children who are on the streets due to urbanisation, war or migration and who may be vulnerable to risks such as trafficking.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Mirella Veras, Jun 16, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
88 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background This paper builds on a Cochrane–Campbell systematic review of interventions that reduce harms and promote reintegration in street-connected children and young people focusing on intervention outcomes. The aim of the present analysis is to explore questions raised in the systematic review over the potential role of service engagement in mediating outcomes of relevant interventions. Objective The paper summarises engagement-related findings from quantitative intervention evaluations with street-connected populations of children and young people, as reported by study authors. It seeks to contribute to theoretical and methodological understandings of service engagement with street-connected youth populations and to highlight gaps in current knowledge. Methods Drawing on the original search for the Cochrane–Campbell review, we re-screened search results in our database and included quantitative findings if relevant to our current research questions, regardless of study design. Additionally, we sought new study publications from authors whose work was included in the original systematic review. The discussion explores relevant data from five studies included in the original systematic review, ten studies excluded from the review, and two studies published after the completion of the review. Results The measures of service engagement in the included studies focused on treatment attendance, ‘level of engagement’, and service satisfaction. Evidence on the impact of service engagement on other outcomes in interventions for street-connected children and young people was limited. Available data on the predictors and impact of service engagement were mixed and appear not to provide robust support for common hypotheses in the relevant context.
    Child and Youth Care Forum 06/2015; 44(3). DOI:10.1007/s10566-014-9286-6 · 1.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction: The patterning of the HIV epidemic within young key populations (YKPs) highlights disproportionate burden by mental disorders in these populations. The mental wellbeing of YKPs is closely associated with biological predispositions and psychosocial factors related to YKPs’ sexual and gender identities and socio-economic status. The purpose of this paper is to highlight sources of risk and resilience, as well as identify treatment and supports for mental health disorders (MHDs) among YKPs. Discussion: This paper utilizes Bronfenbrenner’s Bioecological Systems Theory and the Social Stress Model to explore the risk and protective factors for MHDs across YKPs’ ecological systems, and identify current gaps in treatment and support for MHDs among these youth. We emphasize the fluidity and intersections across these categorizations which reinforce the vulnerability of these populations, the lack of concrete data to inform mental health interventions among YKPs, and the need to ground YKP interventions and programmes with human rights principles stipulated in the convention on the rights of a child. Conclusions: We put forth recommendations for future research and strategies to address the mental wellbeing of YKPs, including the need for integrated interventions that address the multiplicity of risk factors inherent in the multiple groupmembership, rather than single-focus interventions whilst addressing the unique needs or challenges of YKPs.
    Journal of the International AIDS Society 02/2015; 18 (Suppl 1): 19429(2(Suppl 1)):54 - 63. DOI:10.7448/IAS.18.2.19429 · 4.21 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reporting guidelines can be used to encourage standardised and comprehensive reporting of health research. In light of the global commitment to health equity, we have previously developed and published a reporting guideline for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012). The objectives of this study were to explore the utility of the equity extension items included in PRISMA-E 2012 from a systematic review author perspective, including facilitators and barriers to its use. This will assist in designing dissemination and knowledge translation strategies. We conducted a survey of systematic review authors to expose them to the new items in PRISMA-E 2012, establish the extent to which they had historically addressed those items in their own reviews, and gather feedback on the usefulness of the new items. Data were analysed using Microsoft Excel 2008 and Stata (version 11.2 for Mac). Of 151 respondents completing the survey, 18.5% (95% CI: 12.7% to 25.7%) had not heard of the PRISMA statement before, although 83.4% (95% CI: 77.5% to 89.3%) indicated that they plan to use PRISMA-E 2012 in the future, depending on the focus of their review. Most (68.9%; 95% CI: 60.8% to 76.2%) thought that using PRISMA-E 2012 would lead them to conduct their reviews differently. Important facilitators to using PRISMA-E 2012 identified by respondents were journal endorsement and incorporation of the elements of the guideline into systematic review software. Barriers identified were lack of time, word limits and the availability of equity data in primary research. This study has been the first to 'road-test' the new PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline and the findings are encouraging. They confirm the acceptability and potential utility of the guideline to assist review authors in reporting on equity in their reviews. The uptake and impact of PRISMA-E 2012 over time on design, conduct and reporting of primary research and systematic reviews should continue to be examined.
    PLoS ONE 10/2013; 8(10):e75122. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0075122 · 3.53 Impact Factor