Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMawn, Lauren
dc.contributor.authorOliver, Emily J.
dc.contributor.authorAkhter, Nasima
dc.contributor.authorBambra, Clare L.
dc.contributor.authorTorgerson, Carole
dc.contributor.authorBridle, Christopher
dc.contributor.authorStain, Helen J.
dc.contributor.illustrator
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-20T12:59:57Z
dc.date.available2017-01-25T00:00:00Z
dc.date.available2020-11-20T12:59:57Z
dc.date.issued2017-01-25
dc.identifier.citationMawn L, Oliver EJ, Akhter N, Bambra CL, Torgerson C, Bridle C, Stain HJ (2017) 'Are we failing young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs)? a systematic review and meta-analysis of re-engagement interventions', Systematic Reviews, 6 (1)en_US
dc.identifier.pmid28122584
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s13643-016-0394-2
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10547/624628
dc.description.abstractBackground: Youth comprise 40% of the world's unemployed, a status associated with adverse wellbeing and social, health, and economic costs. This systematic review and meta-analysis review synthesises the literature on the effectiveness of interventions targeting young people not in employment, education, or training (NEET). Methods: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials with a concurrent or counterfactual control group and baseline equivalence are included. Cochrane collaboration tools are used to assess quality, and a narrative synthesis was undertaken. The primary outcome is employment; secondary outcomes were health, earnings, welfare receipt, and education. Results: Eighteen trials are included (9 experimental and 9 quasi-experimental), sample sizes range from 32 to 54,923. Interventions include social skills, vocational, or educational classroom-based training, counselling or one-to-one support, internships, placements, on-the-job or occupational training, financial incentives, case management, and individual support. Meta-analysis of three high-quality trials demonstrates a 4% (CI 0.0-0.7) difference between intervention and control groups on employment. Evidence for other outcomes lacks consistency; however, more intensive programmes increase employment and wages over the longer term. Conclusions: There is some evidence that intensive multi-component interventions effectively decrease unemployment amongst NEETs. The quality of current evidence is limited, leaving policy makers under-served when designing and implementing new programmes, and a vulnerable population neglected. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42014007535en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBioMed Central Ltd.en_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-016-0394-2en_US
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5264339/en_US
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/*
dc.subjectwagesen_US
dc.subjecthealthen_US
dc.subjecteffectivenessen_US
dc.subjectunemploymenten_US
dc.subjectNEETen_US
dc.subjectSubject Categories::C841 Health Psychologyen_US
dc.titleAre we failing young people not in employment, education or training (NEETs)? a systematic review and meta-analysis of re-engagement interventionsen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.eissn2046-4053
dc.contributor.departmentNewcastle Universityen_US
dc.contributor.departmentDurham Universityen_US
dc.contributor.departmentLincoln Universityen_US
dc.contributor.departmentLeeds Trinity Universityen_US
dc.identifier.journalSystematic Reviewsen_US
dc.identifier.pmcidPMC5264339
dc.date.updated2020-11-20T12:55:53Z
dc.description.noteopen access


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
bridle4.pdf
Size:
648.2Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International