Better evidence for a better world

Campbell evidence and gap maps

Coming soon – Campbell EGMs are a new evidence synthesis product. Plain language summaries of our EGMs will be published on this website. The interactive EGMs and full EGM reports will be available in our journal on the Wiley Online Library platform: click here.



Learn more about Campbell EGMs

Other EGMs

Campbell has produced maps on other topics, sometimes in partnership with other organisations.



See our other EGMs
Better evidence for a better world
Better evidence for a better world

Better evidence for a better world (169)

Additional Info

  • Authors Hugh Waddington, Ada Sonnenfeld, Juliette Finetti, Marie Gaarder, Denny John, Jennifer Stevenson
  • Published date 2019-08-02
  • Coordinating group(s) International Development
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cl2.1025
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Citizen engagement improves access to public services in low- and middle-income countries, but evidence on development outcomes is limited

    Interventions promoting citizen engagement in public service management involve participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) mechanisms. In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), these interventions are effective in improving active citizenship and service delivery, and may improve the responsiveness of service provider staff for services provided directly by public servants (for example, in health).

    In contrast, interventions providing information to stimulate pressure on politicians are not usually effective in improving provider response or service delivery. There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether these interventions are effective in improving wellbeing or the relationship between citizens and the state.

    What is this review about?

    Failures in governance lead to the exclusion of large portions of society from public services and to waste, fraud and corruption. This review assesses evidence for interventions promoting better governance of public services: participation (participatory planning), inclusion (involvement of marginalised groups), transparency (information about citizen rights or performance of public officials), and accountability (citizen feedback) mechanisms, known collectively as PITA mechanisms.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of interventions to promote citizen engagement in public service management. The review synthesises evidence from 35 impact evaluations and 36 related studies of interventions promoting participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) mechanisms.

    What studies are included?

    The review includes impact evaluations relating to 35 PITA programmes from 20 LMICs. In addition, 36 qualitative and programmatic documents were included to strengthen understanding of implementation context and programme mechanisms.

    What are the main findings of this review?

    Citizen engagement interventions (i) are usually effective in improving intermediate user engagement outcomes, for example, meeting attendance and contributions to community funds; (ii) improve access to and quality of services but not service use outcomes; (iii) can lead to improvements in some wellbeing outcomes such as health and productive outcomes; (iv) may improve tax collection; but (v) do not usually lead to changes in provider action outcomes such as public spending, staff motivation and corruption. There may be an exception where there is direct interaction between citizens and service providers in the regular delivery of services. Interventions providing performance information do not generally improve access or lead to improvements in service quality.

    Only interventions focused on services delivered by front-line staff (e.g., in health) achieve positive outcomes. Those delivered without public interaction (e.g., roads) do not. However, engagement with civil society organisations and interest groups may lead to better outcomes for services accessed independently of providers. Inclusive citizen engagement programmes have at least as big an effect on user engagement and access to services as less inclusive approaches.

    Many interventions experienced challenges stemming from a lack of positive engagement with supply-side actors, whose power the interventions often sought to diminish. Interventions implemented with the strong support of the targeted service providers were better able to realise positive impacts.

    Approaches to citizen-service provider engagement appear to work more effectively when implemented through phased, facilitated collaborative processes rather than one-off accountability meetings that are seen as confrontational.

    Only four studies present any data on intervention costs. This limited the potential for any analysis of comparisons across programmes and settings.

    In interpreting the findings, it must be noted that each individual outcome is reported in only a few studies and that included studies have important methodological weaknesses with risks of bias arising from weak design, analysis and reporting.

    What do the findings of this review mean?

    For policy and programme managers: A collaborative rather than confrontational approach with the service providers whose services are under scrutiny is more likely to be effective. Engaging communities may require using civil society organisations to facilitate the community’s participation. Programme design should ensure positive engagement with supply-side actors within the intervention setting.

    For researchers: More high-quality studies are needed, comparing different approaches to improving service delivery, paying attention to complete description of the different approaches being compared. Since implementation is a crucial factor, mixed methods studies should be the norm, and will help focus on equity considerations which have been neglected. Finally, there should be standardisation of indicators in PITA studies.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies up to March 2018.

Additional Info

  • Authors Takayuki Harada, Hiroshi Tsutomi, Rintaro Mori, David Wilson
  • Published date 2019-07-25
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1026
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Cognitive‐behavioural treatment for amphetamine‐type stimulants‐use disorders

    What was the aim of this review?

    The aim of this Cochrane review was to find out whether cognitive‐behavioural treatment (CBT) is effective to treat people with amphetamine‐type stimulants (ATS)‐use disorders. Researchers in the Drugs and Alcohol Group of Cochrane collected and analysed all relevant studies to answer this question and found two studies.

    Key messages

    The current evidence was inadequate to draw any firm evidence‐based treatment recommendations for the client population.

    What was studied in the review?

    ATS are a group of synthetic stimulants and their use has been widespread globally. These types of drugs are highly addictive and prolonged use may result in a series of mental and physical symptoms including anxiety, confusion, insomnia (difficulty sleeping), mood disturbances, cognitive impairments (difficulty thinking and understanding), paranoia (irrational feeling that people are 'out to get you'), hallucinations (where someone experiences something that does not exist outside their own mind) and delusion (a mistaken belief).

    Currently there is no widely accepted treatment for ATS‐use disorder. However, CBT is often the first choice of treatment. It is a psychological treatment (talking therapy) approach to modify distorted thoughts and beliefs, and maladaptive behaviours (things that people do to stop them from adjusting to situations). The effectiveness of CBT for other substance‐use disorders (e.g. alcohol‐, opioid‐ and cocaine‐use disorders) has been well documented and as such this basic treatment approach has been applied to the ATS‐use disorder. These types of therapies are expected to prevent relapse and decrease drug use.

    What are the main results of the review?

    The review authors found two eligible studies. Both studies were conducted in Australia. One study compared a single session of brief CBT to a waiting‐list control where participants received no treatment during the study period. One study compared web‐based CBT to a waiting‐list control. Both studies were funded by the Australian Government of Health and Ageing.

    The review showed that when participants received CBT, compared to waiting‐list control, there was no difference. There was insufficient evidence to conclude that CBT was effective or ineffective at treating ATS‐use disorders.

    How up‐to‐date is this review

    The review authors searched for studies that had been published up to July 2018.

Additional Info

  • Authors Robert M. Bernard, Eugene Borokhovski, Richard F. Schmid, David I. Waddington, David Pickup
  • Published date 2019-07-19
  • Coordinating group(s) Education
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1017
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Adaptive teaching and individualization for K‐12 students improve academic achievement

    Teaching methods that individualize and adapt instructional conditions to K‐12 learners’ needs, abilities, and interests help improve learning achievement. The most important variables are the teacher's role in the classroom as a guide and mentor and the adaptability of learning activities and materials.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review assesses the overall impact on student achievement of processes and methods that are more student‐centered versus less student‐centered. It also considers the strength of student‐centered practices in four teaching domains.

    • Flexibility: Degree to which students can contribute to course design, selecting study materials, and stating learning objectives.
    • Pacing of instruction: Students can decide how fast to progress through course content and whether this progression is linear or iterative.
    • Teacher's role: Ranging from authority figure and sole source of information, to teacher as equal partner in the learning process.
    • Adaptability: Degrees of manipulating learning environments, materials, and activities to make them more student‐centered.

    What is this review about?

    Teaching in K‐12 classrooms involves many decisions about the appropriateness of methods and materials that both provide content and encourage learning.

    This review assesses the overall impact on student achievement of processes and methods that are more student‐centered versus less student‐centered (and thus more teacher‐centered, i.e., more under the direct control of a teacher). It also considers in which instructional dimensions the application of more of these student‐centered practices is most appropriate, and the strength of student‐centered practices in each of four teaching domains.

    What studies are included?

    This review presents evidence from 299 studies (covering 43,175 students in a formal school setting) yielding 365 estimates of the impact of teaching practices. The studies spanned the period 2000–2017 and were mostly carried out in the United States, Europe, and Australia.

    What is the overall average effect of more versus less student‐centered instruction on achievement outcomes? Which demographic variables moderate the overall results?

    More student‐centered instructional conditions have a moderate positive effect on student achievement compared to less student‐centered.

    Which dimensions of instruction are most important in promoting better achievement through the application of more versus less student‐centered instruction? Do these dimensions interact?

    The teacher's role has a significantly positive impact on student achievement; more student‐centered instruction produces better achievement. Pacing of instruction/learning—where learners have more choice over setting the pace and content navigation of learning activities—has a significant effect in the opposite direction; i.e., a significantly negative relationship. There is no relationship between adaptability and flexibility and student achievement.

    There are interactive effects. The teacher's role combined with adaptability produces stronger effects, whereas flexibility (greater involvement of students in course design and selection of learning materials and objectives) has the opposite effect; it reduces the effectiveness of teacher's role on learning outcomes.

    Special education students perform significantly better in achievement compared to the general population.

    Three other factors—grade level; Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) versus non‐STEM subjects; individual subjects—do not have any effect on the impact of the intervention.

    What do the findings of this review mean?

    This review confirms previous research on the effectiveness of student‐centered and active learning. It goes further in suggesting the teacher's role promotes effective student‐centered learning, and excessive student control over pacing appears to inhibit it.

    An important element of these findings relates to the significant combination of teacher's role and adaptability, in that it suggests the domain in which the teacher's role should focus.

    Since adaptability relates to increasing the involvement of students in more student‐centered activities, the evidence suggests that instruction that involves activity‐based learning, either individually or in groups, increases learning beyond the overall effect found for more student‐centered versus less student‐centered activities.

    Various student‐centered approaches, such as cooperative learning and peer‐tutoring, have been found to accomplish this goal.

    How up‐to‐date is this review?

    This meta‐analysis contains studies that date from 2000–2017.

Additional Info

  • Authors Brandy R. Maynard, Anne Farina, Nathaniel A. Dell, Michael S. Kelly
  • Published date 2019-07-17
  • Coordinating group(s) Education
  • Type of document Review
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1018
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    The review in brief

    Despite growing support and increased rate of which trauma‐informed approaches are being promoted and implemented in schools, evidence to support this approach is lacking.

    What is this review about?

    Exposure to different types of trauma have been associated with varying types and complexity of adverse outcomes, including adverse effects on cognitive functioning, attention, memory, academic performance, and school‐related behaviors. Given the growing research on trauma and increased knowledge about the prevalence, consequences and costs associated with trauma, there have been increased efforts at the local, state and federal levels to make systems “trauma‐informed” (Lang, Campbell, & Vanerploeg, 2015). While the intent of creating trauma‐informed approaches in schools is a noble one, relatively little is known about the benefits, costs, and how trauma‐informed approaches are being defined and evaluated (Berliner & Kolko, 2016). Adopting a trauma‐informed approach in a complex system such as a school building or district is a time consuming and potentially costly endeavor and thus it is important to assess the effects of this approach to inform policy and practice.

    This aim of this review was to assess trauma‐informed approaches in schools on trauma symptoms/mental health, academic performance, behavior, and socioemotional functioning. Trauma‐informed approaches include programs, organizations, or systems that realize the impact of trauma, recognize the symptoms of trauma, respond by integrating knowledge about trauma policies and practices, and seeks to reduce retraumatization. At least two of the three key elements of a trauma‐informed approach must have been present: Workforce development, trauma‐focused services, and organizational environment and practices, which differ from trauma‐specific interventions designed to treat or otherwise address the impact/symptoms of trauma and facilitate healing.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review sought to examine the effects trauma‐informed schools on trauma symptoms/mental health, academic performance, behavior, and socioemotional functioning. Although we conducted a comprehensive search to find studies testing trauma‐informed approaches in schools, no studies met the inclusion criteria.

    What are the main findings of this review?

    No studies met criteria for this review, indicating that there is a lack of evidence of trauma‐informed approaches in schools.

    What do the findings of this review mean?

    Despite widespread support and growing adoption of trauma‐informed approaches in schools across the globe, we found no studies to provide good evidence to suggest that this approach is effective in achieving the stated goals. Given the degree to which trauma‐informed approaches are being adopted in schools across the US and other countries, it is important that the effects of these programs be assessed.

    How up‐to‐date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies June through September, 2017.

Additional Info

  • Published date 2019-06-01

Additional Info

  • Authors Padraic Fleming, Sinead McGilloway, Marian Hernon, Mairead Furlong, Siobhain O’Doherty, Fiona Keogh, Tim Stainton
  • Published date 2019-01-25
  • Coordinating group(s) Disability
  • Type of document Review
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2019.3
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Individualised funding provides personal budgets for people with disabilities, to increase independence and quality of life. The approach has consistently positive effects on overall satisfaction, with some evidence also of improvements in quality of life and sense of security. There may also be fewer adverse effects. Despite implementation challenges, recipients generally prefer this intervention to traditional supports.

    What is this review about?

    Individualised funding is an umbrella term for disability supports funded on an individual basis. It aims to facilitate self-direction, empowerment, independence and self-determination. This review examines the effects and experiences of individualised funding.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of individualised funding on a range of health and social care outcomes. It also presents evidence on the experiences of people with a disability, their paid and unpaid supports and implementation successes and challenges from the perspective of both funding and support organisations.

    What are the main findings of this review?

    This study is a review of 73 studies of individualised funding for people with disabilities. These include four quantitative studies, 66 qualitative and three based on a mixed-methods design. The data refer to a 24-year period from 1992 to 2016, with data for 14,000 people. Studies were carried out in Europe, the US, Canada and Australia.

    What studies are included?

    Overall, the evidence suggests positive effects of individualised funding with respect to quality of life, client satisfaction and safety. There may also be fewer adverse effects. There is less evidence of impact for physical functioning, unmet need and cost effectiveness. The review finds no differences between approaches for the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT), self-perceived health and community participation.

    Recipients particularly value: flexibility, improved self-image and self-belief; more value for money; community integration; freedom to choose ‘who supports you; ‘social opportunities’; and needs-led support. Many people chose individualised funding due to previous negative experiences of traditional, segregated, group-orientated supports.

    Successful implementation is supported by strong, trusting and collaborative relationships in their support network with both paid and unpaid individuals. This facilitates processes such as information sourcing, staff recruitment, network building and support with administrative and management tasks. These relationships are strengthened by financial recognition for family and friends, appropriate rates of pay, a shift in power from agencies to the individual or avoidance of paternalistic behaviour.

    Challenges include long delays in accessing and receiving funds, which are compounded by overly complex and bureaucratic processes. There can be a general lack of clarity (e.g. allowable budget use) and inconsistent approaches to delivery as well as unmet information needs. Hidden costs or administrative charges can be a source of considerable concern and stress.

    Staff mention involvement of local support organisations, availability of a support network for the person with a disability and timely relevant training as factors supporting implementation. Staff also highlight logistical challenges in support needs in an individualised way including, for example, responding to individual expectations, and socio-demographic differences.

    What do the findings of this review mean?

    This review provides an up-to-date and in-depth synthesis of the available evidence over 25 years. It shows that there are benefits of the individualised funding model. This finding suggests that practitioners and funders should consider moving away from scepticism, towards opportunity and enthusiasm. Policy makers need to be aware of the set-up and transitionary costs involved. Investment in education and training will facilitate deeper understanding of individualised funding and the mechanisms for successful implementation.

    Future studies should incorporate longer follow-ups at multiple points over a longer period. The authors of the review encourage mixed-methods approaches in further systematic reviews in the field of health and social care, to provide a more holistic assessment of the effectiveness and impact of complex ‘real-world’ interventions.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies up to the end of 2016. This Campbell systematic review was published in January 2019.

Additional Info

  • Authors Maren Duvendack, Philip Mader
  • Published date 2019-01-07
  • Coordinating group(s) International Development, Methods
  • Type of document Review Plain language summary
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2019.2
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    A wide range of financial inclusion programmes seek to increase poor people’s access to financial services to enhance the welfare of poor and low-income households in low- and middle-income countries. The impacts of financial inclusion interventions are small and variable. Although some services have some positive effects for some people, overall financial inclusion may be no better than comparable alternatives, such as graduation or livelihoods interventions.

    What is this review about?

    Financial inclusion programmes seek to increase access to financial services such as credit, savings, insurance and money transfers and so allow poor and low-income households in low- and middle-income countries to enhance their welfare, grasp opportunities, mitigate shocks, and ultimately escape poverty.  This systematic review of reviews assesses the evidence on economic, social, behavioural and gender-related outcomes from financial inclusion.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This systematic review of reviews systematically collects and appraises all of the existing meta-studies – that is systematic reviews and meta-analyses – of the impact of financial inclusion. The authors first analyse the strength of the methods used in those meta-studies, then synthesise the findings from those that are of a sufficient quality, and finally, report the implications for policy, programming, practice and further research arising from the evidence. Eleven studies are included in the analysis.

    What are the main findings of this review?

    What studies are included?

    This review includes studies that synthesise the findings of other studies (meta-studies) regarding the impacts of a range of financial inclusion interventions on economic, social, gender and behavioural outcomes. A total of 32 such meta-studies were identified, of which 11 were of sufficient methodological quality to be included in the final analysis. The review examined meta-studies from 2010 onwards that spanned the globe in terms of geographical coverage.

    Impacts are more likely to be positive than negative, but the effects vary, are often mixed, and appear not to be transformative in scope or scale, as they largely occur in the early stages of the causal chain of effects. Overall, the effects of financial services on core economic poverty indicators such as incomes, assets or spending, and on health status and other social outcomes, are small and inconsistent. Moreover, there is no evidence for meaningful behaviour-change outcomes leading to further positive effects.

    The effects of financial services on women’s empowerment appear to be generally positive, but they depend upon programme features which are often only peripheral or unrelated to the financial service itself (such as education about rights), cultural and geographical context, and what aspects of empowerment are considered.

    Accessing savings opportunities appears to have small but much more consistently positive effects for poor people, and bears fewer downside risks for clients than credit. A large number of the meta-studies included in the final analysis voiced concerns about the low quality of the primary evidence base that formed the basis of their syntheses. This raises concerns about the reliability of the overall findings of meta-studies.

    What do the findings of this review mean?

    This systematic review of reviews draws on the largest-ever evidence base on financial inclusion impacts.  The weak effects found warn against unrealistic hype for financial inclusion, as previously happened for microcredit. There are substantial evidence gaps, notably studies of sufficient duration to measure higher-level impacts which take time to materialize, and for specific outcomes such as debt levels or indebtedness patterns and the link to macroeconomic development.

    This study is the first review of reviews published by the Campbell Collaboration. Some important limitations were encountered working at this level of systematisation.  It is recommended that authors of primary studies and meta-studies engage more critically with study quality and ensure better, more detailed reporting of their concepts, data and methods. More methods guidance and clearer reporting standards for the social science and international development context would be helpful.

    How up-to-date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies in November 2017, updating elements of the searches in January 2018. This Campbell Systematic Review was published in January 2019.

  • Spanish

    Click on 'Download PDF' on the right to view the plain language summary in Spanish.

Additional Info

  • Authors Heather Hensman Kettrey, Robert A. Marx, Emily E. Tanner-Smith
  • Published date 2019-01-04
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice
  • Type of document Review
  • Library Image Library Image
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2019.1
  • Records available in English, Spanish
  • English

    PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

    Bystander programs increase bystander intervention but no effect on perpetrating sexual assault

    Bystander sexual assault prevention programs have beneficial effects on bystander intervention but there is no evidence of effects on sexual assault perpetration. Effects on knowledge and attitudes are inconsistent across outcomes.

    What is this review about?

    Sexual assault is a significant problem among adolescents and college students across the world. One promising strategy for preventing these assaults is the implementation of bystander sexual assault prevention programs, which encourage young people to intervene when witnessing incidents or warning signs of sexual assault. This review examines the effects bystander programs have on knowledge and attitudes concerning sexual assault and bystander behavior, bystander intervention when witnessing sexual assault or its warning signs, and participants’ rates of perpetration of sexual assault.

    What is the aim of this review?

    This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of bystander programs on knowledge and attitudes concerning sexual assault and bystander intervention, bystander intervention when witnessing sexual assault or its warning signs, and the perpetration of sexual assault. The review summarizes evidence from 27 high‐quality studies, including 21 randomized controlled trials.

    What studies are included?

    This review includes studies that evaluate the effects of bystander programs for young people on (a) knowledge and attitudes concerning sexual assault and bystander intervention, (b) bystander intervention behavior when witnessing sexual assault or its warning signs, and (c) perpetration of sexual assault. Twenty‐seven studies met the inclusion criteria. These included studies span the period from 1997 to 2017 and were primarily conducted in the USA (one study was conducted in Canada and one in India). Twenty‐one studies were randomized controlled trials and six were high quality quasi‐experimental studies.

    What are the main findings of this review?

    Do bystander programs have an effect on knowledge/attitudes, on bystander intervention, or on sexual assault perpetration?

    Bystander programs have an effect on knowledge and attitudes for some outcomes. The most pronounced beneficial effects are on rape myth acceptance and bystander efficacy outcomes. There are also delayed effects (i.e., 1 to 4 months after the intervention) on taking responsibility for intervening/acting, knowing strategies for intervening, and intentions to intervene outcomes. There is little or no evidence of effects on gender attitudes, victim empathy, date rape attitudes, and on noticing sexual assault outcomes.

    Bystander programs have a beneficial effect on bystander intervention. There is no evidence that bystander programs have an effect on participants’ rates of sexual assault perpetration.

    What do the findings of this review mean?

    The United States 2013 Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act requires postsecondary educational institutions participating in Title IX financial aid programs to provide incoming college students with sexual violence prevention programming that includes a component on bystander intervention.

    Bystander programs have a significant effect on bystander intervention. But there is no evidence that these programs have an effect on rates of sexual assault perpetration. This suggests that bystander programs may be appropriate for targeting the behavior of potential bystanders but may not be appropriate for targeting the behavior of potential perpetrators.

    Beneficial effects of bystander programs on bystander intervention were diminished by 6 months post‐intervention. Thus, booster sessions may be needed to yield any sustained effects.

    There are still important questions worth further exploration. Namely, more research is needed to investigate the underlying causal mechanisms of program effects on bystander behavior (e.g., to model relationships between specific knowledge/attitude effects and bystander intervention effects), and to identify the most effective types of bystander programs (e.g., using randomized controlled trials to compare the effects of two alternate program models). Additionally, more research is needed in contexts outside of the USA so that researchers can better understand the role of bystander programs across the world.

    How up‐to‐date is this review?

    The review authors searched for studies up to June 2017.

  • Spanish

    RESUMEN EN LENGUAJE SENCILLO

    Los programas contra la omisión de socorro para transeúntes aumentan su intervención, pero no afectan la incidencia de las agresiones sexuales

    Los programas de prevención de agresiones sexuales para crear conciencia en los transeúntes acerca de la omisión de socorro tienen efectos positivos en cuanto a la intervención de los mismos, aunque no existe evidencia que muestre impacto alguno en la incidencia sobre las agresiones sexuales. Los efectos en el conocimiento y las actitudes son contradictorias en todos los resultados.

    ¿Qué estudió la revisión?

    Las agresiones sexuales son un gran problema entre adolescentes y estudiantes universitarios en todo el mundo. Una estrategia prometedora para prevenir estas agresiones es la implementación de programas de prevención de agresiones sexuales para educar a transeúntes, que fomenten a los jóvenes a intervenir cuando sean testigos de este tipo de incidentes o adviertan señales de que existe algún tipo de agresión sexual. Esta revisión examina los efectos que los programas contra la omisión de socorro para transeúntes tienen en cuanto al conocimiento y las actitudes relacionadas con las agresiones sexuales, el comportamiento de los transeúntes, su intervención al momento de presenciar una agresión sexual o sus señales de advertencia, y las tasas de participación en la comisión de agresiones sexuales.

    ¿Cuál es el objetivo de esta revisión?

    Esta revisión sistemática Campbell examina los efectos de los programas de transeúntes en cuanto al conocimiento y las actitudes relacionadas con las agresiones sexuales y la intervención de transeúntes, su intervención cuando presencian una agresión sexual o sus señales de advertencia, y la comisión de agresiones sexuales. Esta revisión resume evidencia de 27 estudios de alta calidad, incluyendo 21 ensayos de control aleatorizados.

    ¿Qué estudios se incluyen?

    Esta revisión incluye estudios que evalúan los efectos de los programas de transeúntes para jóvenes en cuanto a (1) su conocimiento y las actitudes relacionadas con las agresiones sexuales, y la capacidad de intervención del transeúnte, (2) el ímpetu de los transeúntes a intervenir cuando son testigos de una agresión sexual o advierten señales de ella, y (3) la incidencia de agresiones sexuales.

    Veintisiete estudios cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. Estos estudios abarcaron el período entre 1997 y 2017 y fueron llevados a cabo principalmente en Los Estados Unidos (un estudio fue hecho en Canadá y otro en la India). Veintiún estudios fueron ensayos controlados aleatorizados y seis fueron estudios cuasi experimentales de alta calidad.

    ¿Los programas de transeúntes tienen un efecto en el conocimiento/actitudes en la intervención de peatones, o en la perpetración de un asalto sexual?

    Los programas para concientizar a los transeúntes muestran efectos en el conocimiento y las actitudes en algunos resultados.

    Los efectos más beneficiosos son que se acepte la historia contada por la víctima de la violación y los resultados en cuanto a la eficiencia de la intervención del transeúnte. También hay consecuencias diferidas (ej.: de uno a cuatro meses después de la intervención) en cuanto a asumir la responsabilidad por mediar/actuar, estar en conocimiento de estrategias de intervención y los resultados de la intención de intervenir. Existe poca o insuficiente evidencia acerca de los efectos sobre las actitudes de género, la empatía con la víctima, las actitudes de violación en citas, y en notar los efectos de las agresiones sexuales.

    Los programas de concientización de transeúntes tienen un efecto positivo en su intervención. No hay evidencia que demuestre que los programas de transeúntes afecten los índices de participación en la comisión de agresiones sexuales.

    ¿Qué significan los resultados de esta revisión?

    La ley de Eliminación de Violencia Sexual en los Campus de Estados Unidos 2013 (SaVE) procura que las instituciones educativas postsecundarias participen en el Título IX de los programas de asistencia financiera, entregando a los nuevos alumnos universitarios programas de prevención de violencia sexual, la cual incluye un componente sobre la intervención de los transeúntes.

    Los programas de concientización de transeúntes tienen un efecto significativo en su intervención. No obstante, no hay evidencia que estos programas afecten las tasas de incidencia de agresiones sexuales. Esto sugiere que los programas de transeúntes pueden ser apropiados en cuanto al comportamiento de posibles transeúntes que observen un hecho de agresión, aunque no tanto en cuanto al comportamiento de los potenciales autores del crimen.

    Los efectos positivos de los programas de transeúntes en cuanto a la intervención peatonal disminuyeron seis meses después de la intervención. De este modo, sería necesario contemplar sesiones de refuerzo para mantener los efectos de forma sostenida.

    Aún quedan preguntas importantes que requieren una exploración más profunda. Es decir, es necesario hacer más estudios que investiguen los mecanismos causales subyacentes de los efectos del programa en el comportamiento de los transeúntes (ej.: para modelar las relaciones entre los efectos de conocimiento/actitud específica y los efectos de la intervención de los peatones), e identificar los tipos de programas de transeúntes más efectivos (ej.: usar ensayos controlados aleatorizados para comparar los efectos de dos modelos de programas alternativos). Además, se necesita mayor investigación en contextos fuera de Estados Unidos para que los investigadores puedan comprender mejor el rol de los programas de transeúntes en todo el mundo.

    ¿Cuán actualizada es esta revisión?

    Los autores de la revisión buscaron estudios hasta junio de 2017. Esta revisión sistemática Campbell fue enviada en octubre de 2017, revisada en octubre de 2018 y publicada en enero de 2019.

Additional Info

  • Authors Angela Higginson, Kathryn Benier, Yulia Shenderovich, Laura Bedford, Lorraine Mazerolle, Joseph Murray
  • Published date 2018-11-29
  • Coordinating group(s) Crime and Justice, International Development
  • Type of document Title Protocol Review Plain language summary
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2018.11

Additional Info

  • Authors Trine Filges, Christoffer Scavenius Sonne-Schmidt, Bjørn Christian Viinholt Nielsen
  • Published date 2018-10-11
  • Coordinating group(s) Education
  • Type of document Title Protocol Review Plain language summary Data
  • See the full review https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.4073/csr.2018.10
Page 1 of 17

Contact us

  • P.O. Box 222, Skøyen,
    N-0213 Oslo, Norway
  • (+47) 21 07 81 00
  • info@campbellcollaboration.org