Normal view MARC view ISBD view

Adolescent dating violence prevention programmes : a global systematic review of evaluation studies H Luz McNaughton Reyes, Laurie M. Graham, May S. Chen, Deborah Baron, Andrew Gibbs, Alison K. Groves, Lusajo Kajula, Sarah Bowler, Suzanne Maman

By: McNaughton Reyes, H. Luz.
Contributor(s): Graham, Laurie M | Chen, May S | Baron, Deborah | Gibbs, Andrew | Groves, Alison K | Kajula, Lusajo | Bowler, Sarah | Maman, Suzanne.
Material type: materialTypeLabelArticleSeries: The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.Publisher: Elsevier, 2020Subject(s): ADOLESCENT RELATIONSHIP ABUSE | ADOLESCENTS | DATING VIOLENCE | INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE | PREVENTION | SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS | INTERNATIONALOnline resources: DOI: 10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30276-5 In: The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 2020, In pressSummary: Adolescent dating violence negatively affects millions of young people worldwide. Through a global systematic review, we synthesised evidence from rigorous studies of prevention programmes for adolescent dating violence. Our aims were to: (1) describe the breadth of research in this area and evidence of programme effects, and (2) identify gaps in the evidence base. We included experimental and controlled quasi-experimental programme evaluations, published before Jan 1, 2020, that assessed effects on victimisation or perpetration, or both, in adolescent dating violence and in which at least half of the study population was 10–19 years old. Study design, programme elements, and outcomes were compared between evaluations implemented in high-income countries (HICs) and low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). 52 evaluations met inclusion criteria, of which 20 (38%) were implemented in LMICs. Evaluations in HICs were more likely to assess effects on adolescent dating violence victimisation and perpetration, rather than just victimisation, than those in LMICs, and they were also more likely to include boys and girls, as opposed to just a single sex. Overall, 26 (50%) of the 52 evaluations reported a significant preventive effect on at least one outcome for adolescent dating violence, of which nine were implemented in LMICs. Across LMICs and HICs, findings suggest research is needed to shed light on how adolescent dating violence prevention programmes work and to identify whether programme effects generalise across different settings, outcomes, and subgroups. (Authors' abstract). Record #6957
No physical items for this record

The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 2020, In press

Adolescent dating violence negatively affects millions of young people worldwide. Through a global systematic review, we synthesised evidence from rigorous studies of prevention programmes for adolescent dating violence. Our aims were to: (1) describe the breadth of research in this area and evidence of programme effects, and (2) identify gaps in the evidence base. We included experimental and controlled quasi-experimental programme evaluations, published before Jan 1, 2020, that assessed effects on victimisation or perpetration, or both, in adolescent dating violence and in which at least half of the study population was 10–19 years old. Study design, programme elements, and outcomes were compared between evaluations implemented in high-income countries (HICs) and low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). 52 evaluations met inclusion criteria, of which 20 (38%) were implemented in LMICs. Evaluations in HICs were more likely to assess effects on adolescent dating violence victimisation and perpetration, rather than just victimisation, than those in LMICs, and they were also more likely to include boys and girls, as opposed to just a single sex. Overall, 26 (50%) of the 52 evaluations reported a significant preventive effect on at least one outcome for adolescent dating violence, of which nine were implemented in LMICs. Across LMICs and HICs, findings suggest research is needed to shed light on how adolescent dating violence prevention programmes work and to identify whether programme effects generalise across different settings, outcomes, and subgroups. (Authors' abstract). Record #6957