This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: The aim of this systematic review is to examine the scientific evidence available from low- and middle-income countries on the association of breakfast consumption habits and anthropometry/adiposity- and nutrition-related outcomes in adolescents aged 10–19 years old.
This is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of research on mental health outcomes of abortion. Does abortion increase the risk of adverse mental health outcomes? That is the central question for this review. Our review aims to inform policy and practice by locating, critically appraising, and synthesizing empirical evidence on associations between abortion and subsequent mental health outcomes. Given the controversies surrounding this topic and the complex social, political, legal, and ideological contexts in which research and reviews on abortion are conducted, it is especially important to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis with comprehensive, rigorous, unbiased, and transparent methods. We will include a variety of study designs to enhance understanding of studies' methodological strengths and weaknesses and to identify potential explanations for conflicting results. We will follow open science principles, providing access to our methods, measures, and results, and making data available for re-analysis.
This is the protocol for a Campbell Collaboration systematic review. Our objective is to synthesize what is known about the effectiveness of strategies for reducing community violence, focusing on those strategies that have been subjected to a systematic review. We aim to answer the following questions in this review: what strategies to reduce community violence have been rigorously evaluated through systematic reviews; which have sufficient evidence of effectiveness, which seem promising, and which appear ineffective; and what implications for practice and policy can be drawn from this large body of research? We anticipate categorizing the results of our review similarly to the original review by Abt and Winship (2016). That is, categorizing reviews by people-based approaches, place-based approaches, and behavior-based approaches. However, given that this is an updated review and we will be incorporating additional studies, we may find that an alternative or additional categorization is warranted and update our categorization accordingly. Implications for policy and practice as they relate to these categories will be discussed.
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The primary aim of this mixed methods review is to synthesise the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice interventions (RJIs) for reducing offending and reoffending outcomes in children and young people. We are also particularly interested in the impact of RJIs on children and young peoples' violent offending and violent reoffending. A second aim of the review is to examine whether the magnitude of effectiveness of RJIs may be influenced by study characteristics such as the population (e.g., age, ethnicity, or sex), the form of intervention (e.g., face-to-face mediation compared to family group conferencing), the place of delivery of the intervention (e.g., in independent office, in court), implementation (e.g., trained facilitators, dose, fidelity) and methodology (e.g., randomised controlled trial). The third aim of the review is to synthesise the qualitative evidence about RJ to develop a better contextual understanding of how these programmes may work and to elucidate factors that might increase the efficacy and implementation of RJ interventions. The specific research questions this systematic review aims to address are: (1) Do RJ interventions reduce children and young people's involvement in offending or reoffending relative to a comparison group? [RQ1]. (2) Is there variation in the impact of different RJ approaches on young people's involvement in offending or reoffending? [RQ2]. (3) Is there variation in the impact of RJIs on children and young people's offending or reoffending depending on the characteristics of the participants taking part in the RJI (e.g., sex, age, ethnicity)? [RQ3]. (4) What characteristics of RJIs, influence the effectiveness of RJIs for children and young people's offending and reoffending? [RQ4]. (5) What are the most notable barriers and facilitators, as reported by participants (e.g., the victims, children/young people, or mediators who have taken part in an evaluation of an RJI, or those children or young people who were meant to take part in an evaluation but ultimately did not), to the implementation of RJIs to reduce later offending or reoffending? [RQ5].
Evidence and gap maps (EGMs) are an increasinly popular approach used in evidence synthesis. As an approach they address broad research questions, describing the existing evidence base, highlighting evidence gaps and providing an interactive visual tool for knowledge users. The purpose of this methodological study is to explore the the processes used in the development of EGM's and how they are reported. The aim is to better understand current practice and identify where clearer guidance is needed to support their production.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：