BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2009
Health outcomes of youth development programme in England: prospective matched comparison study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wiggins Meg, Bonell Chris, Sawtell Mary, Austerberry Helen, Burchett Helen, Allen Elizabeth, Strange Vicki
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of youth development in reducing teenage pregnancy, substance use, and other outcomes.
DESIGN: Prospective matched comparison study.
SETTING: 54 youth service sites in England.
PARTICIPANTS: Young people (n=2724) aged 13-15 years at baseline deemed by professionals as at risk of teenage pregnancy, substance misuse, or school exclusion or to be vulnerable.
INTERVENTION: Intensive, multicomponent youth development programme including sex and drugs education (Young People's Development Programme) versus standard youth provision.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Various, including pregnancy, weekly cannabis use, and monthly drunkenness at 18 months.
RESULTS: Young women in the intervention group more commonly reported pregnancy than did those in the comparison group (16% v 6%; adjusted odds ratio 3.55, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 9.50). Young women in the intervention group also more commonly reported early heterosexual experience (58% v 33%; adjusted odds ratio 2.53, 1.09 to 5.92) and expectation of teenage parenthood (34% v 24%; 1.61, 1.07 to 2.43).
CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found that the intervention was effective in delaying heterosexual experience or reducing pregnancies, drunkenness, or cannabis use. Some results suggested an adverse effect. Although methodological limitations may at least partly explain these findings, any further implementation of such interventions in the UK should be only within randomised trials.
DESIGN: Prospective matched comparison study.
SETTING: 54 youth service sites in England.
PARTICIPANTS: Young people (n=2724) aged 13-15 years at baseline deemed by professionals as at risk of teenage pregnancy, substance misuse, or school exclusion or to be vulnerable.
INTERVENTION: Intensive, multicomponent youth development programme including sex and drugs education (Young People's Development Programme) versus standard youth provision.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Various, including pregnancy, weekly cannabis use, and monthly drunkenness at 18 months.
RESULTS: Young women in the intervention group more commonly reported pregnancy than did those in the comparison group (16% v 6%; adjusted odds ratio 3.55, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 9.50). Young women in the intervention group also more commonly reported early heterosexual experience (58% v 33%; adjusted odds ratio 2.53, 1.09 to 5.92) and expectation of teenage parenthood (34% v 24%; 1.61, 1.07 to 2.43).
CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found that the intervention was effective in delaying heterosexual experience or reducing pregnancies, drunkenness, or cannabis use. Some results suggested an adverse effect. Although methodological limitations may at least partly explain these findings, any further implementation of such interventions in the UK should be only within randomised trials.