Richard F Catalano1, Martie L Skinner2, Gina Alvarado3, Chisina Kapungu4, Nicola Reavley5, George C Patton6, Cassandra Jessee7, Daniel Plaut8, Caitlin Moss8, Kristina Bennett6, Susan M Sawyer6, Meroji Sebany4, Magnolia Sexton9, Christina Olenik10, Suzanne Petroni11. 1. The Social Development Research Group, School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 2. The Social Development Research Group, School of Social Work, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: skinnm@u.washington.edu. 3. Landesa, Seattle, Washington. 4. International Center for Research on Women, Washington, DC. 5. Centre for Mental Health, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 6. Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. 7. International Center for Research on Women, Washington, DC; Making Cents International, Washington, DC. 8. Results for Development, Washington, DC. 9. PATH, Washington, DC. 10. Making Cents International, Washington, DC. 11. Gender Equality Solutions, LLC, Washington, DC.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Positive youth development (PYD) has served as a framework for youth programs in high-income countries since the 1990s and has demonstrated broad behavioral health and developmental benefits. PYD programs build skills, assets, and competencies; foster youth agency; build healthy relationships; strengthen the environment; and transform systems to prepare youth for successful adulthood. The goal of this article was to systematically review the impact of PYD programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Targeted searches of knowledge repository Web sites and keyword searches of Scopus and PubMed identified over 21,500 articles and over 3,700 evaluation reports published between 1990 and mid-2016. Ninety-four PYD programs with evaluations in LMICs were identified, of which 35 had at least one experimental or rigorous quasi-experimental evaluation. RESULTS: Sixty percent of the 35 programs with rigorous evaluations demonstrated positive effects on behaviors, including substance use and risky sexual activity, and/or more distal developmental outcomes, such as employment and health indicators. CONCLUSIONS: There is promising evidence that PYD programs can be effective in LMICs; however, more rigorous examination with long-term follow-up is required to establish if these programs offer benefits similar to those seen in higher income countries.
PURPOSE: Positive youth development (PYD) has served as a framework for youth programs in high-income countries since the 1990s and has demonstrated broad behavioral health and developmental benefits. PYD programs build skills, assets, and competencies; foster youth agency; build healthy relationships; strengthen the environment; and transform systems to prepare youth for successful adulthood. The goal of this article was to systematically review the impact of PYD programs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Targeted searches of knowledge repository Web sites and keyword searches of Scopus and PubMed identified over 21,500 articles and over 3,700 evaluation reports published between 1990 and mid-2016. Ninety-four PYD programs with evaluations in LMICs were identified, of which 35 had at least one experimental or rigorous quasi-experimental evaluation. RESULTS: Sixty percent of the 35 programs with rigorous evaluations demonstrated positive effects on behaviors, including substance use and risky sexual activity, and/or more distal developmental outcomes, such as employment and health indicators. CONCLUSIONS: There is promising evidence that PYD programs can be effective in LMICs; however, more rigorous examination with long-term follow-up is required to establish if these programs offer benefits similar to those seen in higher income countries.
Authors: Nothando Ngwenya; Clare Crang; Morag Farquhar; Robert C Rintoul; Ravi Mahadeva; Lori D Calvert; Scott A Murray; Stephen Barclay Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2021-09-25 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Nana Apenem Dagadu; Kathryn M Barker; Sam B T Okello; Brad Kerner; Callie Simon; Dennis Nabembezi; Rebecka Inga Lundgren Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-03-22 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Julie A Denison; Virginia M Burke; Sam Miti; Bareng A S Nonyane; Christiana Frimpong; Katherine G Merrill; Elizabeth A Abrams; Jonathan K Mwansa Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 3.240