Adults experiencing homelessness in high income countries often also face issues of problematic substance use, mental ill health, in addition to housing instability, so it is important to understand what interventions might help address these issues. While there is growing evidence of the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for the general population, limited evidence exists specifically for those experiencing homelessness.
To summarise the existing evidence of whether psychosocial interventions work in reducing problematic substance use, mental ill health, and housing instability for adults experiencing homelessness in high income countries.
We used searches undertaken for the Homelessness Effectiveness Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) 5th edition. These were supplemented with hand searches of key journals and a call for evidence.
We included all Randomised Control Trials and non-randomised studies where a comparison group was used and which examined psychosocial interventiONS for adults experiencing homelessness. ‘Psychosocial intervention’ is a broad term and covers several interventions, including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), contingency management, and motivational interviewing. We focused on studies that measure at least one of three outcomes: reduction in problematic substance use (alcohol and/or drugs); reduction in mental ill-health; reduction in housing instability.
For included studies sourced from the EGM, we used the risk of bias assessments reported in the EGM. For included studies sourced from our own searches, we used the same tools used in the EGM to undertake our own assessments. We carried out meta-analysis where possible, and where not possible, presented included studies narratively.
We included 26 papers covering 23 individual intervention studies. All of the included studies were from the United States. Of the 26 papers, 14 were assessed as having medium or high risk of bias, with main issues being lack of masking/blinding, lack of power calculations, and high levels of drop-out.
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. (1) Examine whether secondary and tertiary interventions delivered outside of the criminal justice system are effective at countering the cognitive and behavioural radicalisation of children and adolescents by synthesising evidence relating to relevant primary and secondary outcomes of effectiveness. (2) Examine whether secondary and tertiary interventions delivered outside of the criminal justice system are being implemented as intended by synthesising evidence that captures how interventions are implemented, considering whether they are implemented as expected or in ways that align with their underlying logic. (3) Identify those implementation factors (facilitators and barriers) and moderators that impact how interventions working with children and adolescents are delivered.
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. This systematic review will examine the impact of the Integrated Thematic Instruction (ITI) on academic attainment and other possible outcomes of primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching. We will seek to answer the following research question: What impact does the ITI/HET teaching has on academic attainment and other possible outcomes of primary and secondary school students compared to standard teaching?
Delayed publication of systematic reviews increases the risk of presenting outdated data. To date, no studies have examined the time and review process from title registration and protocol publication to the final publication of Campbell systematic reviews. This study aims to examine the publication time from protocol to full review publication and the time gap between database searches and full review publication for Campbell systematic reviews. All Campbell systematic reviews in their first published version were included. We searched the Campbell systematic review journals on the Wiley Online Library website to identify all completed studies to date. We manually searched the table of contents of all Campbell systematic reviews to obtain the date of title registration from the journal's website. We used SPSS software to perform the statistical analysis. We used descriptive statistics to report publication times which were calculated stratified by characteristics, including year of review publication, type of reviews, number of authors, difference in authors between protocol and review, and Campbell Review Groups. Non-normal distributed data were reported as medians, interquartile range, and range, and normal distributed data will be reported as mean ± standard deviation. And we also visualized the overall publication time and the distribution of data. Approximately 18% of reviews were published within one to 2 years, faster than the aims set by Campbell systematic review policies and guidelines, which was 2 years. However, more than 40% of the reviews were published more than 2 years after protocol publication. Furthermore, over 50% of included reviews were published with a time gap of more than 2 years after database searches. There was no significant difference between Campbell coordinating groups' median publication times and time gap from searches of databases to full review publication existed. However, the methods group only published one full review with almost a 3-year time gap from searches of databases to review publication. And there was a major difference between specific types of review. Systematic reviews had the longest median publication time of 2.4 years, whereas evidence and gap maps had the lowest median publication time of 13 months. Half of Campbell reviews were published more than 2 years after protocol publication. Furthermore, the median time from protocol publication to review publication varied widely depending on the specific type of review.
Aloe, A. M., Dewidar, O., Hennessy, E. A., Pigott, T., Stewart, G., Welch, V., Wilson, D. B., & Campbell MECCIR Working Group. (2024) Campbell standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20, e1445. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1445
We apologize for this error.
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The primary objective of this review is to answer the following research questions: (1) What is the extent of financial coaching intervention research? (2) What are the effects on financial outcomes of financial coaching embedded within community settings? (3) What are the effects on financial outcomes of financial coaching embedded within healthcare settings? (4) What are the effects on health/well-being-related outcomes of financial coaching embedded within community settings? (5) What are the effects on health/well-being-related outcomes of financial coaching embedded within healthcare settings? (6) What study or intervention characteristics are associated with variation in the effects of financial coaching (i.e., design (RCT and QED), publication status (published or unpublished), dosage and duration of financial coaching intervention (continuous variable), age, financial coaching elements, and setting of intervention (healthcare or non-healthcare)?
This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: The first objective is to find and describe machine and statistical learning (ML) methods designed for moderator meta-analysis. The second objective is to find and describe applications of such ML methods in moderator meta-analyses of health, medical, and social science interventions. These two parts of the meta-review will primarily involve a systematic review and will be conducted according to guidelines specified by the Campbell Collaboration (MECCIR guidelines). The outcomes will be a list of ML methods that are designed for moderator meta-analysis (first objective), and a description of how (some of) these methods have been applied in the health, medical, and social sciences (second objective). The third objective is to examine how the ML methods identified in the meta-review can help researchers formulate new hypotheses or select among existing ones, and compare the identified methods to one another and to regular meta-regression methods for moderator analysis. To compare the performance of different moderator meta-analysis methods, we will apply the methods to data on tutoring interventions from two systematic reviews of interventions to improve academic achievement for students with or at risk-of academic difficulties, and to an independent test sample of tutoring studies published after the search period in the two reviews.
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：