Top

Systematic Reviews

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Protocol

Community mobilisation approaches to preventing and reducing adolescent multiple risk behaviour: a realist review protocol

Authors: Laura Tinner, Deborah Caldwell, Rona Campbell

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Adolescent multiple risk behaviour (MRB) continues to be a global health issue. Most interventions have focused on the proximal causes of adolescent MRB such as peer or family influence, rather than targeting the wider environmental or structural context. There is increasing recognition that community mobilisation approaches could be beneficial for adolescent health. Despite this, there are gaps in the current literature, theory and implementation that would benefit from a realist approach due to the suitability of this methodology to analysing complex interventions. The objective of this study is to understand ‘how, why, for whom and in what circumstances and time periods’ do community mobilisation interventions work to prevent and/or reduce adolescent multiple risk behaviour.

Methods

This is a protocol for a realist review. The review will use a six-stage iterative process, guided by the RAMESES framework. We will systematically search PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL and Sociological Abstracts, from their inception to 2021. Studies will be screened for relevance to the programme theory and included based on a priori eligibility criteria including (1) reporting a community mobilisation intervention (2) targeting two health risk behaviors (3) for adolescent populations. Two independent reviewers will select, screen and extract data related to the program theory from all relevant sources. A realist logic of analysis will be used to identify all context-mechanism-outcome configurations that contribute to our programme theory. The findings will be synthesised to produce a refined programme theory model.

Discussion

The goal of this realist review is to identify and refine a programme theory for community mobilisation approaches to the prevention and/or reduction of adolescent multiple risk behaviour. Our aim is that the findings surrounding the programme theory refinement can be used to develop and implement adolescent multiple risk behaviour interventions and maintain collaboration between local policy makers, researchers and community members.

Systematic review registration

This realist review is registered on the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42020205342).

Available only for authorised users

For instance, a ‘pre-teen’ intervention targeting children age 9–12 would be included as the population are only 1 year out of our pre-specified age range of 10–19 years. However, an older adolescent/young adult intervention targeting individuals aged 18–25 would not be included as only 2 years (18 and 19) of the eight year range addressed by the intervention falls within our age banding

Jackson CA, Henderson M, Frank JW, Haw SJ. An overview of prevention of multiple risk behaviour in adolescence and young adulthood. J Public Health. 2012;34(suppl_1):i31–40.CrossRef

Patton GC, Sawyer SM, Santelli JS, Ross DA, Afifi R, Allen NB, et al. Our future: a Lancet commission on adolescent health and wellbeing. Lancet. 2016;387(10036):2423–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00579-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Kipping RR, Campbell RM, MacArthur GJ, Gunnell DJ, Hickman M. Multiple risk behaviour in adolescence. J Public Health. 2012;34(suppl_1):i1–2.CrossRef

Brooks FM, Magnusson J, Spencer N, Morgan A. Adolescent multiple risk behaviour: an asset approach to the role of family, school and community. J Public Health. 2012;34(suppl_1):i48–56.CrossRef

Hurrelmann K, Richter M. Risk behaviour in adolescence: the relationship between developmental and health problems. J Public Health. 2006;14(1):20–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-005-0005-5.CrossRef

Tinner L, Caldwell D, Hickman M, MacArthur GJ, Gottfredson D, Perez AL, et al. Examining subgroup effects by socioeconomic status of public health interventions targeting multiple risk behaviour in adolescence. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):1180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6042-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Wright C, Kipping R, Hickman M, Campbell R, Heron J. Effect of multiple risk behaviours in adolescence on educational attainment at age 16 years: a UK birth cohort study. BMJ Open. 2018;8(7):e020182. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020182.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Campbell R, Wright C, Hickman M, Kipping RR, Smith M, Pouliou T, et al. Multiple risk behaviour in adolescence is associated with substantial adverse health and social outcomes in early adulthood: findings from a prospective birth cohort study. Preventive Med. 2020;138:106157.

Hausdorf K, Eakin E, Whiteman D, Rogers C, Aitken J, Newman B. Prevalence and correlates of multiple cancer risk behaviors in an Australian population-based survey: results from the Queensland Cancer Risk Study. Cancer Causes Control. 2008;19(10):1339–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-008-9205-y.CrossRefPubMed

10.

Hickman M, Caldwell DM, Busse H, MacArthur G, Faggiano F, Foxcroft DR, et al. Individual-, family-, and school-level interventions for preventing multiple risk behaviours relating to alcohol, tobacco and drug use in individuals aged 8 to 25 years. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;(11):CD011374.

11.

Fagan AA, Hawkins JD, Catalano RF. Interventions for addiction: chapter 90. Mobilizing Communities for Alcohol, Drug, and Tobacco Prevention. London: Elsevier Inc. Chapters; 2013.

12.

MacArthur G, Caldwell DM, Redmore J, Watkins SH, Kipping R, White J, et al. Individual-, family-, and school-level interventions targeting multiple risk behaviours in young people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;10.

13.

Adams J, Mytton O, White M, Monsivais P. Why are some population interventions for diet and obesity more equitable and effective than others? The role of individual agency. Plos Med. 2016;13(4):e1001990.

14.

Miller RL, Janulis PF, Reed SJ, Harper GW, Ellen J, Boyer CB, et al. Creating youth-supportive communities: outcomes from the Connect-to-Protect®(C2P) structural change approach to youth HIV prevention. J Youth Adolesc. 2016;45(2):301–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0379-9.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Aguirre-Molina M, Gorman DM. Community-based approaches for the prevention of alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use. Annu Rev Public Health. 1996;17(1):337–58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pu.17.050196.002005.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Carson KV, Brinn MP, Labiszewski NA, Esterman AJ, Chang AB, Smith BJ. Community interventions for preventing smoking in young people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;7.

17.

Lippman SA, Neilands TB, Leslie HH, Maman S, MacPhail C, Twine R, et al. Development, validation, and performance of a scale to measure community mobilization. Soc Sci Med. 2016;157:127–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Watson-Thompson J, Fawcett SB, Schultz JA. A framework for community mobilization to promote healthy youth development. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(3):S72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.12.016.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Flewelling RL, Austin D, Hale K, LaPlante M, Liebig M, Piasecki L, et al. Implementing research-based substance abuse prevention in communities: Effects of a coalition-based prevention initiative in Vermont. J Community Psychol. 2005;33(3):333–53. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20052.CrossRef

20.

Kim-Ju G, Mark GY, Cohen R, Garcia-Santiago O, Nguyen P. Community mobilization and its application to youth violence prevention. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(3):S5–S12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.12.005.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Brunton G, Caird J, Stokes G, Stansfield C, Kneale D, Richardson M, et al. Review 1: Community engagement for health via coalitions, collaborations and partnerships: a systematic review. 2015.

22.

Holder HD, Gruenewald PJ, Ponicki WR, Treno AJ, Grube JW, Saltz RF, et al. Effect of community-based interventions on high-risk drinking and alcohol-related injuries. JAMA. 2000;284(18):2341–7. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.284.18.2341.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Shults RA, Elder RW, Nichols JL, Sleet DA, Compton R, Chattopadhyay SK, et al. Effectiveness of multicomponent programs with community mobilization for reducing alcohol-impaired driving. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(4):360–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2009.07.005.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Massetti GM. Preventing violence among high-risk youth and communities with economic, policy, and structural strategies. MMWR Suppl. 2016;65(1):57–60. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.su6501a9.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Trickett EJ, Beehler S. The ecology of multilevel interventions to reduce social inequalities in health. Am Behav Sci. 2013;57(8):1227–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213487342.CrossRef

26.

Durand M-A, Carpenter L, Dolan H, Bravo P, Mann M, Bunn F, et al. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Plos One. 2014;9(4):e94670. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0094670.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Nickel S, von dem Knesebeck O. Do multiple community-based interventions on health promotion tackle health inequalities? Int J Equity Health. 2020;19(1):1–13.CrossRef

28.

Adhikari B, Vincent R, Wong G, Duddy C, Richardson E, Lavery JV, et al. A realist review of community engagement with health research. Wellcome Open Res. 2019;4. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15298.1.

29.

Wandersman A, Florin P. Community interventions and effective prevention. Am Psychol. 2003;58(6-7):441–8. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.6-7.441.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Gabriel RM. Methodological challenges in evaluating community partnerships & coalitions: Still crazy after all these years. J Commun Psychol. 2000;28(3):339–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6629(200005)28:3<339::AID-JCOP8>3.0.CO;2-9.CrossRef

31.

Bonell C, Hargreaves J, Strange V, Pronyk P, Porter J. Should structural interventions be evaluated using RCTs? The case of HIV prevention. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(5):1135–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.03.026.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Jagosh J. Realist synthesis for public health: building an ontologically deep understanding of how programs work, for whom, and in which contexts. Annu Rev Public Health. 2019;40(1):361–72. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031816-044451.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Usher AM, McShane KE, Dwyer C. A realist review of family-based interventions for children of substance abusing parents. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–12.CrossRef

34.

Richardson EZL, Bandewar SVS, Boulanger RF, Mehta R, Lin T, Vincent R, et al. Addressing diversity and complexity in the community engagement literature: the rationale for a realist review. Wellcome Open Res. 2020;5(1):1. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15525.1.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Wong G, Pawson R, Owen L. Policy guidance on threats to legislative interventions in public health: a realist synthesis. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):222. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-222.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson JIM, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012;90(2):311–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Cooper C, Lhussier M, Shucksmith J, Carr SM. Protocol for a realist review of complex interventions to prevent adolescents from engaging in multiple risk behaviours. BMJ open. 2017;7(9):e015477. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015477.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349(jan02 1). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647.

40.

Power J, Gilmore B, Vallières F, Toomey E, Mannan H, McAuliffe E. Adapting health interventions for local fit when scaling-up: a realist review protocol. BMJ Open. 2019;9(1):e022084.

41.

Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review-a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(1_suppl):21–34.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Greenhalgh T, Wong G, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Protocol-realist and meta-narrative evidence synthesis: evolving standards (RAMESES). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):115. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-115.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Development of methodological guidance, publication standards and training materials for realist and meta-narrative reviews: the RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses–Evolving Standards) project; 2014.

44.

Booth A, Briscoe S, Wright JM. The “realist search”: a systematic scoping review of current practice and reporting. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(1):14–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1386.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Weetman K, Wong G, Scott E, Schnurr S, Dale J. Improving best practice for patients receiving hospital discharge letters: a realist review protocol. BMJ Open. 2017;7(11):e018353. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018353.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, Cunningham B, Lhussier M. What’s in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implementation Sci. 2015;10(1):1–7.CrossRef

47.

Abrams R, Wong G, Mahtani KR, Tierney S, Boylan A-M, Roberts N, et al. Understanding the impact of delegated home visiting services accessed via general practice by community-dwelling patients: a realist review protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8(11):e024876.

48.

GRADE Working Group. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Available from: https://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/. Accessed 1 Sept 2020.

49.

Pawson R. Digging for nuggets: how ‘bad’research can yield ‘good’evidence. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2006;9(2):127–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570600595314.CrossRef

50.

Jagosh J, Bush PL, Salsberg J, Macaulay AC, Greenhalgh T, Wong G, et al. A realist evaluation of community-based participatory research: partnership synergy, trust building and related ripple effects. BMC Public Health. 2015;15(1):725. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-1949-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, DeCorby K, Bucknall TK, Kent B, et al. Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Implementation Sci. 2012;7(1):1–10.CrossRef

Title: Community mobilisation approaches to preventing and reducing adolescent multiple risk behaviour: a realist review protocol
Authors: Laura Tinner
Deborah Caldwell
Rona Campbell
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01696-4

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Community mobilisation approaches to preventing and reducing adolescent multiple risk behaviour: a realist review protocol

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare

Association of different positive end-expiratory pressure selection strategies with all-cause mortality in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome

Effectiveness and harms of clinical decision support systems for referral within chronic pain practice: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Does propofol ameliorate occurrence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction after general anaesthesia? A protocol of systematic review

Gluten in pharmaceutical products: a scoping review

Obstructive sleep apnea increases the risk of cardiovascular damage: a systematic review and meta-analysis of imaging studies