This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (13 JAN 2016)

Intervention Review

You have free access to this content

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

  1. Esther Coren1,*,
  2. Rosa Hossain1,
  3. Jordi Pardo Pardo2,
  4. Mirella MS Veras2,
  5. Kabita Chakraborty3,
  6. Holly Harris4,
  7. Anne J Martin1

Editorial Group: Cochrane Public Health Group

Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009823.pub2


How to Cite

Coren E, Hossain R, Pardo Pardo J, Veras MMS, Chakraborty K, Harris H, Martin AJ. Interventions for promoting reintegration and reducing harmful behaviour and lifestyles in street-connected children and young people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD009823. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009823.pub2.

Author Information

  1. 1

    Canterbury Christ Church University, Research Centre for Children, Families and Communities, Canterbury, Kent, UK

  2. 2

    University of Ottawa, Centre for Global Health, Institute of Population Health, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  3. 3

    University of Melbourne, Jack Brockhoff Child Health and Wellbeing Program, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

  4. 4

    Canterbury Christ Church University, Health, Wellbeing and Family, Canterbury, Kent, UK

*Esther Coren, Research Centre for Children, Families and Communities, Canterbury Christ Church University, North Holmes Road, Canterbury, Kent, CT1 1QU, UK. esther.coren@canterbury.ac.uk.

Publication History

  1. Publication Status: Edited (no change to conclusions)
  2. Published Online: 28 FEB 2013

SEARCH

This is not the most recent version of the article. View current version (13 JAN 2016)

[Figure 1]
Figure 1. Intervention and context logic model
[Figure 2]
Figure 2. Generalisability logic model
[Figure 3]
Figure 3. Study flow diagram.
[Figure 4]
Figure 4. Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
[Figure 5]
Figure 5. Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
[Analysis 1.1]
Analysis 1.1. Comparison 1 Safer or reduced sexual activity, Outcome 1 Number of times had sex - 3 months.
[Analysis 1.2]
Analysis 1.2. Comparison 1 Safer or reduced sexual activity, Outcome 2 Number of times had sex - 6 months.
[Analysis 1.3]
Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Safer or reduced sexual activity, Outcome 3 Number of sexual partners - 3 months.
[Analysis 1.4]
Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Safer or reduced sexual activity, Outcome 4 Number of sexual partners - 6 months.
[Analysis 2.1]
Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 1 Number of days used alcohol in last month - 1 month.
[Analysis 2.2]
Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 2 Number of days used alcohol in last month - 3 months.
[Analysis 2.3]
Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 3 Percent days of alcohol use in last 90 days (Form 90) - 3 months.
[Analysis 2.4]
Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 4 Number of standard drinks (Form 90) - 3 months.
[Analysis 2.5]
Analysis 2.5. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 5 Adolescent Drinking Index - 3 months.
[Analysis 2.6]
Analysis 2.6. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 6 Percent days of alcohol/ drug use (excl tobacco) (Form 90) - 3 months.
[Analysis 2.7]
Analysis 2.7. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 7 Percent days only drug use (Form 90) - 3 months.
[Analysis 2.8]
Analysis 2.8. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 8 Number of categories of drug use (Form 90) - 6 months.
[Analysis 2.9]
Analysis 2.9. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 9 Number of days used marijuana in last month - 1 month.
[Analysis 2.10]
Analysis 2.10. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 10 Number of days used marijuana in last month - 3 months.
[Analysis 2.11]
Analysis 2.11. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 11 Number of days used other drugs in last month - 1 month.
[Analysis 2.12]
Analysis 2.12. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 12 Number of days used other drugs in last month - 3 months.
[Analysis 2.13]
Analysis 2.13. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 13 Number of problem consequences - 3 months.
[Analysis 2.14]
Analysis 2.14. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 14 Number of problem consequences - 6 months.
[Analysis 2.15]
Analysis 2.15. Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 15 Number of substance use diagnoses (CDISC) - 3 months.
[Analysis 3.1]
Analysis 3.1. Comparison 3 Self-esteem, Outcome 1 Self esteem at endpoint.
[Analysis 4.1]
Analysis 4.1. Comparison 4 Depression, Outcome 1 Depression at 3 months.
[Analysis 4.2]
Analysis 4.2. Comparison 4 Depression, Outcome 2 Depression at 6 months.
[Analysis 5.1]
Analysis 5.1. Comparison 5 Reduced use of violence, Outcome 1 Verbal aggression (Conflict Tactic Scale) - 3 months.
[Analysis 5.2]
Analysis 5.2. Comparison 5 Reduced use of violence, Outcome 2 Family violence (Conflict Tactic Scale) - 3 months.
[Analysis 6.1]
Analysis 6.1. Comparison 6 Increased contact with family, Outcome 1 Percentage of days living at home (Form 90) - 3 months.
[Analysis 7.1]
Analysis 7.1. Comparison 7 Social functioning, Outcome 1 Delinquent behaviours at 3 months.
[Analysis 7.2]
Analysis 7.2. Comparison 7 Social functioning, Outcome 2 Delinquent behaviours at 6 months.
[Analysis 7.3]
Analysis 7.3. Comparison 7 Social functioning, Outcome 3 Delinquent behaviours at 12 months.
[Analysis 8.1]
Analysis 8.1. Comparison 8 Psychological functioning, Outcome 1 Internalising behaviours at 3 months.
[Analysis 8.2]
Analysis 8.2. Comparison 8 Psychological functioning, Outcome 2 Internalising behaviours at 6 months.
[Analysis 8.3]
Analysis 8.3. Comparison 8 Psychological functioning, Outcome 3 Externalising behaviours at 3 months.
[Analysis 8.4]
Analysis 8.4. Comparison 8 Psychological functioning, Outcome 4 Externalising behaviours at 6 months.
[Analysis 8.5]
Analysis 8.5. Comparison 8 Psychological functioning, Outcome 5 Number of psychiatric diagnoses.
[Analysis 9.1]
Analysis 9.1. Comparison 9 Family functioning, Outcome 1 Family cohesion (Family Environment Scale) - 3 months.
[Analysis 9.2]
Analysis 9.2. Comparison 9 Family functioning, Outcome 2 Family conflict (Family Environment Scale) - 3 months.
[Analysis 9.3]
Analysis 9.3. Comparison 9 Family functioning, Outcome 3 Parental care (Parental Bonding Instrument) - 3 months.
[Analysis 9.4]
Analysis 9.4. Comparison 9 Family functioning, Outcome 4 Parental overprotection (Parental Bonding Instrument) - 3 months.