↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 blog
22 tweeters
3 Facebook pages
1 Wikipedia page


27 Dimensions

Readers on

482 Mendeley
Interventions for promoting reintegration and reducing harmful behaviour and lifestyles in street-connected children and young people
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009823.pub3
Pubmed ID

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


Millions of street-connected children and young people worldwide live or work in street environments. They are vulnerable to many risks, whether or not they remain connected to families of origin, and despite many strengths and resiliencies, they are excluded from mainstream social structures and opportunities. Primary research objectivesTo evaluate and summarise the effectiveness of interventions for street-connected children and young people that aim to:• promote inclusion and reintegration;• increase literacy and numeracy;• facilitate access to education and employment;• promote mental health, including self esteem;• reduce harms associated with early sexual activity and substance misuse. Secondary research objectives• To explore whether effects of interventions differ within and between populations, and whether an equity gradient influences these effects, by extrapolating from all findings relevance for low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) (Peters 2004).• To describe other health, educational, psychosocial and behavioural effects, when appropriate outcomes are reported.• To explore the influence of context in design, delivery and outcomes of interventions.• To explore the relationship between numbers of components and duration and effects of interventions.• To highlight implications of these findings for further research and research methods to improve evidence in relation to the primary research objective.• To consider adverse or unintended outcomes. We searched the following bibliographic databases, searched for the original review, from inception to 2012, and various relevant non-governmental and organisational websites: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE and Pre-MEDLINE; EMBASE and EMBASE Classic; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL); PsycINFO; Education Resource Information Center (ERIC); Sociological Abstracts; Social Services Abstracts; Social Work Abstracts; Healthstar; Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS); System for Grey literature in Europe (OpenGrey); ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; EconLit; IDEAS Economics and Finance Research; JOLIS Library Catalog of the holdings of the World Bank Group and International Monetary Fund (IMF) Libraries; British Library for Development Studies (BLDS); Google and Google Scholar. We updated the search in April 2015 for the review update, using the same methods. This review includes data from harm reduction or reintegration intervention studies that used a comparison group study design; all were randomised or quasi-randomised studies. Studies were included if they evaluated interventions provided for street-connected children and young people, from birth to 24 years, in all contexts. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and other factors presented in the Discussion and Summary quality assessment (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)). We extracted data on intervention delivery, context, process factors, equity and outcomes, and grouped outcomes into psychosocial outcomes, risky sexual behaviours or substance use. We conducted meta-analyses for outcomes where the outcome measures were sufficiently similar. We evaluated other outcomes narratively. We included 13 studies evaluating 19 interventions from high-income countries (HICs). We found no sufficiently robust evaluations conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Study quality overall was low and measurements used by studies variable. Participants were classified as drop-in and shelter-based. No studies measured the primary outcome of reintegration and none reported on adverse effects.We found no consistent results on a range of relevant outcomes within domains of psychosocial health, substance misuse and sexually risky behaviours . Interventions evaluated consisted of time-limited therapeutically based programmes that proved no more effective than standard shelter or drop-in services and other control interventions used for most outcomes in most studies. Favourable changes from baseline were reported for outcomes for most participants following therapy interventions and standard services. We noted considerable heterogeneity between studies and inconsistent reporting of equity data. No studies measured the primary outcome of reintegration or reported on adverse effects. Analysis revealed no consistently significant benefit for focused therapeutic interventions compared with standard services such as drop-in centres, case management and other comparable interventions for street-connected children and young people. Commonly available services, however, were not rigorously evaluated. Robust evaluation of interventions, including comparison with no intervention, would establish a more reliable evidence base to inform service implementation. More robust research is needed in LMICs to examine interventions for street-connected children and young people with different backgrounds and service needs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 482 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Greece 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 479 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 85 18%
Student > Bachelor 65 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 11%
Researcher 37 8%
Student > Postgraduate 25 5%
Other 91 19%
Unknown 128 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 91 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 81 17%
Psychology 52 11%
Social Sciences 45 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 2%
Other 59 12%
Unknown 145 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 May 2020.
All research outputs
of 22,790,780 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 395,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 270 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,790,780 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,313 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 270 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.