Evaluating Community Violence Intervention Programs: A Scoping Review Synthesizing Methods and Measures.

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Meron Girma, Julia Schleimer, Astrid Aveledo, Ayah Mustafa, Camerin Rencken, Carolyn Thurston, Deepika Nehra, Kris Torset, Kristian Jones, Laura Johnson, Lauren Polansky, Olivia McCollum, Orlando Ames, Rachel Ross, Sam Decker, Stephanie Taylor, Tarrell Harrison, Vivian Lyons, Zaheed Lynch, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar
{"title":"Evaluating Community Violence Intervention Programs: A Scoping Review Synthesizing Methods and Measures.","authors":"Meron Girma, Julia Schleimer, Astrid Aveledo, Ayah Mustafa, Camerin Rencken, Carolyn Thurston, Deepika Nehra, Kris Torset, Kristian Jones, Laura Johnson, Lauren Polansky, Olivia McCollum, Orlando Ames, Rachel Ross, Sam Decker, Stephanie Taylor, Tarrell Harrison, Vivian Lyons, Zaheed Lynch, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar","doi":"10.1177/00469580251361742","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Community violence intervention (CVI) is a promising strategy to reduce community violence, but research on CVI programs remains underdeveloped. While prior reviews have examined the effectiveness of certain CVI models, we lack a comprehensive synthesis of how CVI research is done and what measures are used. We conducted a scoping review of CVI evaluation measures and methods in the United States, reviewing both peer-reviewed and gray literature from 1996 through 2023. We summarized characteristics of CVI program evaluations, including evaluation measures used, units of analysis, and involvement of external partners-including community members-in the evaluation. Of 1763 articles screened, 149 were included. A plurality of studies examined both outcome and process measures (38.9%), and use of process measures increased over time. Most outcome evaluations used only deficit-based measures (76.4%), with variation across CVI model/approach. Authors of studies included in this review reported that CVI practitioners contributed to evaluations in various ways, but only 10.7% of evaluations included CVI practitioners as authors. Process measures were most often collected at the individual level (84.2%), while outcome measures were collected relatively equally at the individual (56.6%) and community level (53.8%) though with notable variation across CVI models/approaches. Community partners working in CVI were part of our authorship team and offered critical insights into interpreting the findings from this scoping review. Findings underscore the need for a more comprehensive approach to CVI evaluation. By including process and outcome measures, including community-level units of analysis in addition to the typical individual-level ones, employing asset-based frameworks, and actively involving community voices, future research can more effectively assess the implementation and impacts of CVI programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":54976,"journal":{"name":"Inquiry-The Journal of Health Care Organization Provision and Financing","volume":"62 ","pages":"469580251361742"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12334825/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Inquiry-The Journal of Health Care Organization Provision and Financing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580251361742","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Community violence intervention (CVI) is a promising strategy to reduce community violence, but research on CVI programs remains underdeveloped. While prior reviews have examined the effectiveness of certain CVI models, we lack a comprehensive synthesis of how CVI research is done and what measures are used. We conducted a scoping review of CVI evaluation measures and methods in the United States, reviewing both peer-reviewed and gray literature from 1996 through 2023. We summarized characteristics of CVI program evaluations, including evaluation measures used, units of analysis, and involvement of external partners-including community members-in the evaluation. Of 1763 articles screened, 149 were included. A plurality of studies examined both outcome and process measures (38.9%), and use of process measures increased over time. Most outcome evaluations used only deficit-based measures (76.4%), with variation across CVI model/approach. Authors of studies included in this review reported that CVI practitioners contributed to evaluations in various ways, but only 10.7% of evaluations included CVI practitioners as authors. Process measures were most often collected at the individual level (84.2%), while outcome measures were collected relatively equally at the individual (56.6%) and community level (53.8%) though with notable variation across CVI models/approaches. Community partners working in CVI were part of our authorship team and offered critical insights into interpreting the findings from this scoping review. Findings underscore the need for a more comprehensive approach to CVI evaluation. By including process and outcome measures, including community-level units of analysis in addition to the typical individual-level ones, employing asset-based frameworks, and actively involving community voices, future research can more effectively assess the implementation and impacts of CVI programs.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

评估社区暴力干预计划:范围检讨综合方法与措施。
社区暴力干预(CVI)是一种很有前途的减少社区暴力的策略,但对CVI计划的研究还不发达。虽然先前的综述已经检查了某些CVI模型的有效性,但我们缺乏对CVI研究如何进行以及使用哪些措施的全面综合。我们对美国的CVI评估措施和方法进行了范围回顾,回顾了1996年至2023年的同行评议文献和灰色文献。我们总结了CVI项目评估的特点,包括使用的评估方法、分析单元和外部合作伙伴(包括社区成员)在评估中的参与。在筛选的1763篇文章中,纳入了149篇。多个研究同时检查了结果和过程度量(38.9%),并且过程度量的使用随着时间的推移而增加。大多数结果评估仅使用基于赤字的测量(76.4%),在不同的CVI模型/方法中存在差异。本综述中包括的研究作者报告说,CVI从业人员以各种方式对评估做出了贡献,但只有10.7%的评估将CVI从业人员作为作者。过程测量最常在个人层面收集(84.2%),而结果测量在个人(56.6%)和社区层面收集(53.8%)相对平均,尽管在CVI模型/方法之间存在显着差异。在CVI工作的社区合作伙伴是我们的作者团队的一部分,他们为解释这次范围审查的结果提供了重要的见解。研究结果强调需要更全面的方法来评估CVI。通过纳入过程和结果度量,在典型的个人层面的基础上纳入社区层面的分析单元,采用基于资产的框架,并积极参与社区的声音,未来的研究可以更有效地评估CVI项目的实施和影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
192
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: INQUIRY is a peer-reviewed open access journal whose msision is to to improve health by sharing research spanning health care, including public health, health services, and health policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信