| Literature DB >> 20863411 |
Amy J Kesterton1, Meena Cabral de Mello.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This review investigates the effectiveness of interventions aimed at generating demand for and use of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services by young people; and interventions aimed at generating wider community support for their use.Entities:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20863411 PMCID: PMC2954841 DOI: 10.1186/1742-4755-7-25
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Health ISSN: 1742-4755 Impact factor: 3.223
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|
| Programs/studies carried out in developing countries with sufficient details of intervention content. | Programs/studies carried out in developing countries with insufficient details of intervention content. |
| Programs/studies that attempted to generate demand for and increase utilization of health services by young people; | Programs/studies that did not attempt to generate demand for and increase utilization of health services by young people; |
| Intervention studies using the following designs: | Interventions that did not use designs enabling the reader to evaluate the impact of the intervention or to make inferences based on statistical tests. |
| • randomized controlled trials; | |
| • quasi-experimental study designs. | |
| When outcomes measured are particularly relevant, studies using these additional designs were included: | |
| • data collected before and after (without | |
| comparison group); | |
| • cross-sectional (after only) when compared | |
| with others not exposed to the intervention or | |
| presented by level of exposure. | |
| Programs/studies carried out in developing countries with sufficient details of intervention content. | Programs/studies carried out in developing countries with insufficient details of intervention content. |
| Programs/studies that attempted to generate community support for and acceptance of provision of young people's health services and their use by young people. | Programs/studies that did not attempt to generate community support for and acceptance of provision of adolescent health services and their use by young people. |
| Intervention studies using the following designs: | Interventions that did not use designs enabling the reader to evaluate the impact of the intervention or to make inferences based on statistical tests. |
| • randomized controlled trials; | |
| • quasi-experimental study designs. | |
| When outcomes measured are particularly relevant, studies using these additional designs were included: | |
| • data collected before and after (without | |
| comparison group); | |
| • cross-sectional (after only) when compared | |
| with others not exposed to the intervention or | |
| presented by level of exposure. | |
Figure 1Flow chart showing exclusion of studies. Chart shows how studies were excluded from the review due to insufficient information on outcomes of interest, weak study design and issues with data quality.