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

Esther Coren; Rosa Hossain; Jordi Pardo Pardo; Brittany Bakker

doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009823.pub3

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Contenido relacionado

Ir a:

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados
Respuestas clínicas Cochrane
Guías
Temas

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Respuestas clínicas Cochrane

Topics

Temas

Figure 1

Intervention and context logic model.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 2

Generalisability logic model.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 3

Study flow diagram.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 4

Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Figure 5

Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Safer or reduced sexual activity, Outcome 1 Number of times had sex ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Safer or reduced sexual activity, Outcome 2 Number of times had sex ‐ 6 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Safer or reduced sexual activity, Outcome 3 Number of sexual partners ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Safer or reduced sexual activity, Outcome 4 Number of sexual partners ‐ 6 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 1 Number of days used alcohol in last month ‐ 1 month.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 2 Number of days used alcohol in last month ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

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.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.4

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 4 Percent days of alcohol use in last 90 days (Form 90) ‐ 6 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.5

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 5 Percent days of alcohol use in last 90 days (Form 90) ‐ 12 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.6

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 6 Number of standard drinks (Form 90) ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.7

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 7 Adolescent Drinking Index ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.8

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 8 Percent days of alcohol/drug use (excl tobacco) (Form 90) ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.9

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 9 Percent days of alcohol/drug use (excl tobacco) (Form 90) ‐ 6 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.10

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 10 Percent days of alcohol/drug use (excl tobacco) (Form 90) ‐ 12 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.11

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 11 Percent days only/any drug use (Form 90) ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.12

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 12 Percent days only/any drug use (Form 90) ‐ 6 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.13

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 13 Percent days only/any drug use (Form 90) ‐ 12 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.14

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 14 Number of days used marijuana in last month ‐ 1 month.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.15

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 15 Number of days used marijuana in last month ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.16

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 16 Number of days used other drugs in last month ‐ 1 month.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.17

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 17 Number of days used other drugs in last month ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.18

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 18 Number of problem consequences ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.19

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 19 Number of problem consequences ‐ 6 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.20

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 20 Number of substance use diagnoses (CDISC) ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 2.21

Comparison 2 Safer or reduced substance use, Outcome 21 Number of categories of drug use (Form 90) ‐ 6 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 3.1

Comparison 3 Self esteem, Outcome 1 Self esteem at endpoint.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.1

Comparison 4 Depression, Outcome 1 Depression at 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.2

Comparison 4 Depression, Outcome 2 Depression at 6 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 4.3

Comparison 4 Depression, Outcome 3 Depression at 12 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.1

Comparison 5 Reduced use of violence, Outcome 1 Verbal aggression (Conflict Tactic Scale) ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 5.2

Comparison 5 Reduced use of violence, Outcome 2 Family violence (Conflict Tactic Scale) ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 6.1

Comparison 6 Increased contact with family, Outcome 1 Percent of days living at home (Form 90) ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.1

Comparison 7 Social functioning, Outcome 1 Delinquent behaviours at 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.2

Comparison 7 Social functioning, Outcome 2 Delinquent behaviours at 6 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 7.3

Comparison 7 Social functioning, Outcome 3 Delinquent behaviours at 12 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.1

Comparison 8 Psychological functioning, Outcome 1 Internalising behaviours at 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.2

Comparison 8 Psychological functioning, Outcome 2 Internalising behaviours at 6 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.3

Comparison 8 Psychological functioning, Outcome 3 Internalising behaviours at 12 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.4

Comparison 8 Psychological functioning, Outcome 4 Externalising behaviours at 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.5

Comparison 8 Psychological functioning, Outcome 5 Externalising behaviours at 6 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.6

Comparison 8 Psychological functioning, Outcome 6 Externalising behaviours at 12 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 8.7

Comparison 8 Psychological functioning, Outcome 7 Number of psychiatric diagnoses.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.1

Comparison 9 Family functioning, Outcome 1 Family cohesion (Family Environment Scale) ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.2

Comparison 9 Family functioning, Outcome 2 Family conflict (Family Environment Scale) ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.3

Comparison 9 Family functioning, Outcome 3 Parental care (Parental Bonding Instrument) ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Analysis 9.4

Comparison 9 Family functioning, Outcome 4 Parental overprotection (Parental Bonding Instrument) ‐ 3 months.

Ir a la figura de la revisiónAbrir en una pestaña nueva

Therapeutic intervention compared with service as usual for street‐connected children and young people
Patient or population: street‐connected children and young people Settings: shelters and drop‐in centres Intervention: various specific therapeutic types of interventions Comparison: shelter/drop‐in service as usual
Outcome categories (summarised)	Impact	Number of studies (Note: studies for different outcomes overlap)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)
Primary outcome ‐ reintegration Promote inclusion and reintegration Increase literacy and numeracy IIncrease access to education and employment	Reintegration was not measured in any of the studies. Similarly, access to literacy, numeracy, education and employment were not measured in any of the studies that met the criteria for inclusion. However, social stability was measured in 1 study and delinquent behaviours in 4 studies. Social stability outcomes measured in 1 study showed benefit for the intervention group. Delinquent behaviour results were mixed across studies; investigators used different types and constructs of measurement, so findings cannot be summarised	1 4	Moderate^a
Promotion of mental health, including self esteem	Outcomes included in this category included depression, internalising and externalising behaviours, self esteem and psychiatric diagnoses measured on various scales. None of these measures showed overall differences between intervention and control groups, and change score calculations demonstrated that for the most part, both groups improved from baseline. These results indicate that for mental health promotion outcomes, the therapeutic intervention did not obtain significantly better outcomes than the service as usual/control condition in the studies included in this review	8	Moderate^a
Reduction in harms associated with substance misuse	Substance misuse was measured in a wide variety of ways and includes alcohol misuse and different categories of non‐prescription drugs, as well as a scale measuring 'problem consequences'. The overall picture emerging form the included studies on these outcomes is unclear, possibly because of the array of measurement types and tools that measure subtly different constructs and differing time windows that were impossible to combine statistically. Results are mixed across studies, with some showing marginal or no differences between groups, and others showing clear benefit for intervention or control. Improvements in some substance misuse measures were noted in all 3 family intervention studies	8	Moderate^a
Reduction in harms associated with early sexual activity	Sexually risky behaviour was similarly measured in different ways, including numbers of partners, numbers of times had sex, HIV knowledge, unprotected sex, condom use and rates of abstinence. Again, the picture across studies is mixed. Some studies showed benefit in 1 or another group, but it is difficult to untangle whether this shows benefit of a particular intervention or control condition, or whether this reflects differences in measurement approach	5	Low^b
Family functioning	These outcomes were measured by two studies that utilised family‐based approaches to providing intervention. No differences were found between intervention and control conditions on most of the outcome measures used. These included various aspects of family life such as parenting style, aggression and violence, family conflict and percent days living at home	2	Low^c
Overall picture	Participants in studies remained for the most part at a similar level or improved on outcomes measured. Assessment of the grade of evidence is moderate overall, as whilst some domains of bias (e.g. allocation concealment) were assessed mostly as having low risk of bias, other domains such as blinding, were assessed consistently as high risk, whilst selective reporting was consistently assessed as unclear. No clear examples showed deteriorated outcomes. Findings may be more generalisable to young people in low‐ and middle‐income countries with circumstances more similar to those included in the studies (i.e. those who have left home because of abuse or family conflict	Total studies included = 13	Moderate^a
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate
Summarised outcome categories used in Summary of findings (SoF) table in the interest of space ^aOverall, the quality of the evidence was assessed as 'moderate' in the context of typical study quality in comparable areas (psychosocial interventions with at‐risk populations), and standard quality criteria were used in Cochrane reviews (in particular, the GRADE evaluation framework as utilised here). Quality of evidence for all available outcome categories was upgraded because they were based on robust study designs (RCTs); reasonably low drop‐out rates (for the study population involved); some analysis of major confounders including age and gender, and publication of data for a broad range of outcomes, including non‐significant outcomes, measured over reasonably long follow‐up periods, in most included studies. Quality of evidence was downgraded for the following reasons: heterogeneity of study outcomes, measures and types of statistical analysis used; inconsistency in measures, findings and analyses across outcomes and across studies with similar interventions; reliance on self report; use of convenience samples; over‐representation of studies from one study team; and questions over study generalisability. Further, few studies involved a control condition receiving no services, and some did not involve a service as usual condition, reducing comparability across studies. Finally, the relationship between intervention theories and outcomes measured remained unclear, and clinical and subjective significance of outcomes was explored in a small number of included studies. No participatory or process evaluations were available ^bAs above, but the quality of the evidence was further downgraded because of the relatively small number of heterogeneous studies ^cAs above, but the quality of the evidence was further downgraded because of the small number of studies available. The two included studies were conducted by the same study team.

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Table 1. Outcomes (data included in meta‐analysis)

Number*	Outcome name	Study	Measure	≤1 month	3 months	6 months	12 months
	Number of times participant had sex in last 90 days	Slesnick 2007/08	HRQ		x	x
	Number of times participant had sex in last 90 days	Milburn 2012	Own		x	x
	Number of sexual partners	Slesnick 2007/08	HRQ		x	x
	Number of sexual partners	Peterson 2006	Own		x	x
	Alcohol use (number of days in last 30 days)	Baer 2007	TLFB	x	x
	Alcohol use (number of days in last 30 days)	Peterson 2006	TLFB	x	x
	Alcohol use (% days in last 90 days)	Slesnick 2005	Form 90		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	Form 90		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	Form 90		x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 CM	Form 90		x	x	x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 CRA	Form 90		x	x	x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 MET	Form 90		x	x	x
	Number of standard drinks (in last 90 days)	Slesnick 2009 EBFT	Form 90		x
	Number of standard drinks (in last 90 days)	Slesnick 2009 FFT	Form 90		x
	Alcohol use (total score)	Slesnick 2009 EBFT	ADI		x
	Alcohol use (total score)	Slesnick 2009 FFT	ADI		x
	Alcohol/drug use (% days in last 90 days)	Slesnick 2005	Form 90			x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	Form 90		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	Form 90		x
		Slesnick 2013/Guo 2014 CRA	Form 90		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2013/Guo 2014 EBFT	Form 90		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2013/Guo 2014 MET	Form 90		x	x	x
	Only/any drug use (% days in last 90 days)	Slesnick 2005	Form 90		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	Form 90		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	Form 90		x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 CM	Form 90		x	x	x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 CRA	Form 90		x	x	x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 MET	Form 90		x	x	x
	Marijuana use (number of days in last 30 days)	Baer 2007	TLFB	x	x
	Marijuana use (number of days in last 30 days)	Peterson 2006	TLFB	x	x
	Drug use other than marijuana (number of days in last 30 days)	Baer 2007	TLFB	x	x
		Peterson 2006	TLFB	x	x
	Number of problem consequences	Slesnick 2005	POSIT		x	x
		Slesnick 2007/08	POSIT			x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	POSIT		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	POSIT		x
	Number of substance use diagnoses	Slesnick 2009 EBFT	CDISC		x
	Number of substance use diagnoses	Slesnick 2009 FFT	CDISC		x
	Number of categories of drug use (last 90 days)	Slesnick 2005	Form 90			x
	Number of categories of drug use (last 90 days)	Slesnick 2007/08	Form 90			x
	Self esteem	Cauce 1994	RSES		x
	Self esteem	Hyun 2005	SEI	x
	Depression	Cauce 1994	RADS		x
		Hyun 2005	BDI	x
		Slesnick 2005	BDI		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2007/08	BDI			x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	BDI		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	BDI		x
		Slesnick 2013/Guo 2014 CRA	BDI		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2013/Guo 2014 EBFT	BDI		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2013/Guo 2014 MET	BDI		x	x	x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 CM	BDI		x	x	x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 CRA	BDI		x	x	x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 MET	BDI		x	x	x
	Verbal aggression (youth)	Slesnick 2005	CTS		x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	CTS		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	CTS		x
	Family violence (youth)	Slesnick 2005	CTS		x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	CTS		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	CTS		x
	Days living at home (% days in last 90 days)	Slesnick 2009 EBFT	Form 90		x
	Days living at home (% days in last 90 days)	Slesnick 2009 FFT	Form 90		x
	Delinquent behaviours	Cauce 1994	YSR		x
		Milburn 2012	DSM‐IV		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2005	NYSDS		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2007/08	NYSDS			x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	NYSDS		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	NYSDS		x
	Internalising problems	Cauce 1994	YSR		x
		Slesnick 2005	YSR		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2007/08	YSR			x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	YSR		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	YSR		x
		Slesnick 2013/Guo 2014 CRA	YSR		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2013/Guo 2014 EBFT	YSR		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2013/Guo 2014 MET	YSR		x	x	x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 CM	YSR		x	x	x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 CRA	YSR		x	x	x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 MET	YSR		x	x	x
	Externalising problems	Cauce 1994	YSR		x
		Slesnick 2005	YSR		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2007/08	YSR			x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	YSR		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	YSR		x
		Slesnick 2013/Guo 2014 CRA	YSR		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2013/Guo 2014 EBFT	YSR		x	x	x
		Slesnick 2013/Guo 2014 MET	YSR		x	x	x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 CM	YSR		x	x	x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 CRA	YSR		x	x	x
		Carmona 2014/Slesnick 2015 MET	YSR		x	x	x
	Number of psychiatric diagnoses	Slesnick 2005	CDISC		x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	CDISC		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	CDISC		x
	Family cohesion	Slesnick 2005	FES		x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	FES		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	FES		x
	Family conflict	Slesnick 2005	FES		x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	FES		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	FES		x
	Parental care	Slesnick 2005	PBI		x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	PBI		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	PBI		x
	Parental overprotectiveness	Slesnick 2005	PBI		x
		Slesnick 2009 EBFT	PBI		x
		Slesnick 2009 FFT	PBI		x
Number	Outcome name	Study	Measure	≤1 month	3 months	6 months	12 months
Gaps occur when absence of relevant data was noted in relation to particular outcomes defined in the protocol

Table 1. Outcomes (data included in meta‐analysis)

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 1. Safer or reduced sexual activity

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Number of times had sex ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	2	239	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.56 [‐1.13, 0.01]

2 Number of times had sex ‐ 6 months Show forest plot	2	242	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.73 [‐2.97, 4.43]

3 Number of sexual partners ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	2	239	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.04 [‐0.25, 0.17]

4 Number of sexual partners ‐ 6 months Show forest plot	2	242	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.04 [‐0.22, 0.13]

Comparison 1. Safer or reduced sexual activity

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 2. Safer or reduced substance use

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Number of days used alcohol in last month ‐ 1 month Show forest plot	2	235	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.33 [‐2.25, 1.59]

2 Number of days used alcohol in last month ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	2	235	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.10 [‐0.67, 2.88]

3 Percent days of alcohol use in last 90 days (Form 90) ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	5	383	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.03 [‐1.86, 1.93]

4 Percent days of alcohol use in last 90 days (Form 90) ‐ 6 months Show forest plot	3	295	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.05 [‐1.76, 3.86]

5 Percent days of alcohol use in last 90 days (Form 90) ‐ 12 months Show forest plot	3	304	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.63 [‐2.23, 3.48]

6 Number of standard drinks (Form 90) ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	2	75	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐2.87 [‐5.68, ‐0.07]

7 Adolescent Drinking Index ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	2	75	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.08 [‐4.42, 6.57]

8 Percent days of alcohol/drug use (excl tobacco) (Form 90) ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	4	214	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.70 [‐9.09, 7.70]

9 Percent days of alcohol/drug use (excl tobacco) (Form 90) ‐ 6 months Show forest plot	3	278	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐2.15 [‐9.82, 5.53]

10 Percent days of alcohol/drug use (excl tobacco) (Form 90) ‐ 12 months Show forest plot	2	127	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	5.87 [‐5.06, 16.79]

11 Percent days only/any drug use (Form 90) ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	5	384	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.67 [‐6.82, 8.15]

12 Percent days only/any drug use (Form 90) ‐ 6 months Show forest plot	3	295	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐2.28 [‐11.53, 6.96]

13 Percent days only/any drug use (Form 90) ‐ 12 months Show forest plot	3	304	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐5.28 [‐13.79, 3.23]

14 Number of days used marijuana in last month ‐ 1 month Show forest plot	2	235	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.52 [‐3.65, 2.62]

15 Number of days used marijuana in last month ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	2	235	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.37 [‐2.73, 3.47]

16 Number of days used other drugs in last month ‐ 1 month Show forest plot	2	204	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.21 [‐0.68, 3.10]

17 Number of days used other drugs in last month ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	2	204	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.22 [‐1.84, 2.28]

18 Number of problem consequences ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	3	182	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.51 [0.56, 2.47]

19 Number of problem consequences ‐ 6 months Show forest plot	2	261	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.34 [‐0.67, 1.34]

20 Number of substance use diagnoses (CDISC) ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	2	75	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.70 [‐1.27, ‐0.14]

21 Number of categories of drug use (Form 90) ‐ 6 months Show forest plot	2	261	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.14 [‐0.33, 0.61]

Comparison 2. Safer or reduced substance use

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 3. Self esteem

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Self esteem at endpoint Show forest plot	2	142	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.11 [‐0.22, 0.44]

Comparison 3. Self esteem

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 4. Depression

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Depression at 3 months Show forest plot	9	661	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.03 [‐0.22, 0.17]

2 Depression at 6 months Show forest plot	6	586	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.83 [‐0.88, 2.55]

3 Depression at 12 months Show forest plot	5	441	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.28 [‐0.36, 2.92]

Comparison 4. Depression

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 5. Reduced use of violence

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Verbal aggression (Conflict Tactic Scale) ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	3	208	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.00 [‐0.07, 0.06]

2 Family violence (Conflict Tactic Scale) ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	3	208	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02]

Comparison 5. Reduced use of violence

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 6. Increased contact with family

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Percent of days living at home (Form 90) ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	2	75	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐9.46 [‐27.96, 9.03]

Comparison 6. Increased contact with family

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 7. Social functioning

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Delinquent behaviours at 3 months Show forest plot	5	404	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.29 [‐0.54, ‐0.03]

2 Delinquent behaviours at 6 months Show forest plot	3	348	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.07 [‐0.52, 0.37]

3 Delinquent behaviours at 12 months Show forest plot	2	177	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.16 [‐1.05, 0.72]

Comparison 7. Social functioning

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 8. Psychological functioning

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Internalising behaviours at 3 months Show forest plot	8	634	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.73 [‐0.87, 2.34]

2 Internalising behaviours at 6 months Show forest plot	6	582	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.30 [‐1.36, 1.97]

3 Internalising behaviours at 12 months Show forest plot	5	433	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.31 [‐1.58, 2.20]

4 Externalising behaviours at 3 months Show forest plot	8	636	Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.09 [‐0.10, 0.28]

5 Externalising behaviours at 6 months Show forest plot	6	583	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.83 [‐0.74, 2.41]

6 Externalising behaviours at 12 months Show forest plot	5	434	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.04 [‐2.89, 2.97]

7 Number of psychiatric diagnoses Show forest plot	3	182	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.06 [‐0.50, 0.37]

Comparison 8. Psychological functioning

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

Comparison 9. Family functioning

Outcome or subgroup title	No. of studies	No. of participants	Statistical method	Effect size
1 Family cohesion (Family Environment Scale) ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	3	208	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	0.88 [0.23, 1.54]

2 Family conflict (Family Environment Scale) ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	3	208	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.05 [‐0.91, 0.81]

3 Parental care (Parental Bonding Instrument) ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	3	208	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	1.68 [‐0.63, 4.00]

4 Parental overprotection (Parental Bonding Instrument) ‐ 3 months Show forest plot	3	208	Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)	‐0.82 [‐4.75, 3.10]

Comparison 9. Family functioning

Ir a la tabla de la revisión

The Cochrane Library

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet Scolaris Content Language Banner Portlet

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Temas

Scolaris Language Selector Scolaris Language Selector

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso

	Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane Escoja su idioma de preferencia para las revisiones Cochrane y otros contenidos. Las secciones sin una traducción aparecerán en inglés.

	Idioma de la web Escoja su idioma de preferencia para la web de la Biblioteca Cochrane.

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Contenido relacionado

Revisiones y protocolos relacionados

Respuestas clínicas Cochrane

Temas

Copiar o descargar referencia

Idioma de la Revisión Cochrane

Idioma de la web

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Usuarios institucionales

Instituciones a las que se accedió previamente

Otras opciones de acceso