Accidental injury, risk-taking behaviour and the social circumstances in which young people (aged 12-24) live: a systematic review

In industrialised countries such as England and Wales, unintended injury (which ranges from sprains in sport to hospitalisation and death due to drugs or transport crashes) is the leading cause of death in children aged 0 to 14 years, and a major cause of death in young adults aged 15 to 24. It is also a major cause of ill health and disability in these age groups. There is a large body of research on young people and their perceived propensity to take risks. Common sense suggests that an increased willingness to place oneself at risk will result an increased likelihood of physical injury. However, given that pathways to injury are complex and not always well understood, the UK Department of Health commissioned a large systematic review to examine this multifaceted issue. Drug use • The review found that the use of drugs is associated with an increased risk of accidental death among young people and that 12–24 year olds are less at risk than those immediately older. However, risk of death increases with length of drug use, so there is value in targeting interventions at this age group. • Many more young men than women die from drug overdoses, because more men take drugs, but those women who do use drugs are at higher risk. Certain other groups of young people are more at risk than others. These include young people in deprived areas and men who have recently been released from prison. • There was a clear disjunction of views between young people who used drugs and those who did not. The young people who did not take drugs regarded them as risky and stated that media images about possible negative consequences dissuaded them from trying them, while those who did tended not to believe ‘official’ messages about possible harms and did not perceive taking drugs as being dangerous. Cannabis in particular was singled out as possibly being good for you, with some young people believing it to be cheaper than alcohol. The recent reclassification of cannabis and the subsequent debate may have helped to reinforce this view. • The burden of the more serious injuries – as demonstrated by the mortality statistics – is carried by young people in the lower socio-economic groups. • In road injuries, drugs are found in the bloodstream of more young fatal accident victims than older age groups; however, it is difficult to assess whether drugs actually contributed to the accident. • Driving on cannabis was thought to be more acceptable than drink-driving and not thought to be dangerous. Alcohol use • Almost everyone admitted to hospital for alcohol poisoning is aged between 11 and 17. After a sharp peak among 14 and 15 year olds, hospital admissions for injuries with alcohol involvement decline slowly between the ages of 16 and 30. • Correlational studies have shown that alcohol puts the drinker at an increased risk of injury, that young people are more likely to have injuries than older people, and that young men are more at risk than young women. In the one study that examined ethnicity, minority ethnic status did not increase alcohol-related injuries, and may in fact have had a protective association. • Views studies found that young people say that they do not commonly mix alcohol and other drugs. Most young people reported that drinking places them at greater risk of injury, though some did not. The younger teenagers – 14 and 15 year olds – felt most in danger of injury when drinking. Young people felt that they learned to manage their drinking through experience and that unsupervised, outdoor drinking was the most dangerous and was more common among younger teenagers (with injuries being considered less common in licensed venues). Peers encourage both drinking and drunken pranks, but also protect one another when they have become more vulnerable as a result of drink. Young people felt that drinking reduces their perceptions of danger and some stated that injury as a result was inevitable. Most young people were cautious about getting very drunk, though being sick as a result of drinking is common and not regarded as serious. Bad experiences – whether to self or someone else – might change behaviour in the short- but not long-term. • One study which examined attempts to reduce alcohol-related injuries found some evidence that motivational interviews in A&E departments are more effective than information handouts. Drink-driving • Drink-driving was generally considered dangerous and not socially acceptable, whereas driving on cannabis was more acceptable and not thought to be dangerous. Some young people stated that a lack of public transport (or alternatives, such as taxis) made it more likely that they would drink and drive. • Interventions based on models of behaviour change to reduce drink-driving are ineffective or have a negative effect. Combining different approaches has more effect than using a single approach. Education or skills training has either negative or no effects on driver behaviour and subsequent accidents, possibly because these approaches lead to over-confidence or early licensing. • Legislation and enforcement on reducing drink-driving has been found to be effective

When assessing generalisability, focusing on differences in population or setting alone is insufficient.

Generalisability is typically only briefly mentioned in discussion sections of evaluation articles, which are unhelpful in judging whether an intervention could be implemented elsewhere, with similar effects. Several tools to assess generalisability exist, but they are difficult to operationalise and are rarely used. We believe a different approach is needed. Instead of focusing on similarities (or more likely, differences) in generic population and setting characteristics, generalisability assessments should focus on understanding an intervention's mechanism of action - why or how an intervention was effective. We believe changes are needed to four types of research. First, outcome evaluations should draw on programme theory. Second, process evaluations should aim to understand interventions' mechanism of action, rather than simply 'what happened'. Third, small scoping studies should be conducted in new settings, to explore how to enact identified mechanisms. Finally, innovative synthesis methods are required, in order to identify mechanisms of action where there is a lack of existing process evaluations

Assessing the applicability of public health intervention evaluations from one setting to another: a methodological study of the usability and usefulness of assessment tools and frameworks.

BACKGROUND: Public health interventions can be complicated, complex and context dependent, making the assessment of applicability challenging. Nevertheless, for them to be of use beyond the original study setting, they need to be generalisable to other settings and, crucially, research users need to be able to identify to which contexts it may be applicable. There are many tools with set criteria for assessing generalisability/applicability, yet few seem to be widely used and there is no consensus on which should be used, or when. This methodological study aimed to test these tools to assess how easy they were to use and how useful they appeared to be. METHODS: We identified tools from an existing review and an update of its search. References were screened on pre-specified criteria. Included tools were tested by using them to assess the applicability of a Swedish weight management intervention to the English context. Researcher assessments and reflections on the usability and utility of the tools were gathered using a standard pro-forma. RESULTS: Eleven tools were included. Their length, content, style and time required to complete varied. No tool was considered ideal for assessing applicability. Their limitations included unrealistic criteria (requiring unavailable information), a focus on implementation to the neglect of transferability (i.e. little focus on potential effectiveness in the new setting), overly broad criteria (associated with low reliability), and a lack of an explicit focus on how interventions worked (i.e. their mechanisms of action). CONCLUSION: Tools presenting criteria ready to be used may not be the best method for applicability assessments. They are likely to be either too long or incomplete, too focused on differences and fail to address elements that matter for the specific topic of interest. It is time to progress from developing lists of set criteria that are not widely used in the literature, to creating a new approach to applicability assessment. Focusing on mechanisms of action, rather than solely on characteristics, could be a useful approach, and one that remains underutilised in current tools. New approaches to assessing generalisability that evolve away from checklist style assessments need to be developed, tested, reported and discussed

Health outcomes of youth development programme in England : Prospective matched comparison study

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of youth development in reducing teenage pregnancy, substance use, and other outcomes

Lifestyle weight management programmes for children: A systematic review using Qualitative Comparative Analysis to identify critical pathways to effectiveness.

This study aimed to identify critical features of successful lifestyle weight management interventions for overweight children (0-11years). Eleven qualitative UK-based studies examining children's, parents' and providers' perspectives and experiences of programmes were synthesised to identify components felt to be critical. Studies for this views synthesis were identified from existing reviews and an update of one review's search, which was run in December 2015. The identified components were then explored in a synthesis of intervention evaluations (five 'most effective' and 15 'least effective') conducted in western Europe, North America, Australia or New Zealand. The intervention evaluations were identified from existing reviews and an update of one review's search, which was run in March 2016. This evaluation synthesis was carried out using Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Three important mechanisms were present in all the most effective interventions but absent in all the least effective: 1/ showing families how to change: a) providing child physical activity sessions, b) delivering practical behaviour change strategy sessions, c) providing calorie intake advice; 2/ ensuring all the family are on board: a) delivering discussion/education sessions for both children and parents, b) delivering child-friendly sessions, c) aiming to change behaviours across the whole family; 3/ enabling social support for both parents and children by delivering both child group sessions and parent group sessions. To conclude, programmes should ensure the whole family is on board the programme, that parents and children can receive social support and are not just told what to change, but shown how

Measuring the health systems impact of disease control programmes: a critical reflection on the WHO building blocks framework.

BACKGROUND: The WHO health systems Building Blocks framework has become ubiquitous in health systems research. However, it was not developed as a research instrument, but rather to facilitate investments of resources in health systems. In this paper, we reflect on the advantages and limitations of using the framework in applied research, as experienced in three empirical vaccine studies we have undertaken. DISCUSSION: We argue that while the Building Blocks framework is valuable because of its simplicity and ability to provide a common language for researchers, it is not suitable for analysing dynamic, complex and inter-linked systems impacts. In our three studies, we found that the mechanical segmentation of effects by the WHO building blocks, without recognition of their interactions, hindered the understanding of impacts on systems as a whole. Other important limitations were the artificial equal weight given to each building block and the challenge in capturing longer term effects and opportunity costs. Another criticism is not of the framework per se, but rather how it is typically used, with a focus on the six building blocks to the neglect of the dynamic process and outcome aspects of health systems.We believe the framework would be improved by making three amendments: integrating the missing "demand" component; incorporating an overarching, holistic health systems viewpoint and including scope for interactions between components. If researchers choose to use the Building Blocks framework, we recommend that it be adapted to the specific study question and context, with formative research and piloting conducted in order to inform this adaptation. SUMMARY: As with frameworks in general, the WHO Building Blocks framework is valuable because it creates a common language and shared understanding. However, for applied research, it falls short of what is needed to holistically evaluate the impact of specific interventions on health systems. We propose that if researchers use the framework, it should be adapted and made context-specific