Table 1

Studies included in the rapid review (overall, 13 papers were included in the review)

AuthorYear of publicationStudy designFindingsComments
Walton et al 17 2010RCT into programmes to reduce alcohol use and violence in 14–18 yo; arms of study were enrolment computer-based programmes or therapist-based brief interventions lasting 35 min in the ED versus the control group.At follow-up of 3–6 months: some limited evidence that both alcoholic and violent behaviours improved after therapist interventionShort follow-up, adequately powered,
remunerated for taking part in surveys
Cheng et al 18 2008RCT 12–17 yo: assigned no case worker or 4 months of intensive case worker supportReview at 6 months: no violence with intervention, 8% violent episode without; not statistically significant as only 126 casesUnable to conclude whether significant impact, short follow-up time, high DNA rate to service
Cheng et al 19 2008RCT 10–15 yo: intervention six sessions of problem solving and parental home visitsNumber of sessions relates to impact,
reduced misdemeanour activity and youth-reported aggression scores, increased youth self-sufficiency
Both groups had case management (onward referrals)
Zun20 2003Case–control: cases had assessment and case management (social worker); control had resources brochureThose on a psychosocial needs programme used more services subsequently (education and housing).What impact does that then make?
Zun et al 21 2006RCT 10–24 yo: assigned case worker for 6 months or control group evaluated at 6 and 12 months after interventionSelf-reported injury lower, no significant difference in arrests or reinjury (state-reported data)Large drop-out rate
Davis et al 22 2018RCT: screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (or SBIRT programmes) using either computer programme or therapist for those with alcohol-related problems versus controlCharacteristics of responders and non-responders; multiple factors influence impact (readiness to change, peer relationships and depression)Not directly youth violence related, only 3 months of follow-up,
remunerated for taking part in surveys
Carter et al 23 2016RCT: Brief therapist intervention in ED or control (brochure)Reduced violent aggression and increased fight avoidance (significant) with therapist arm2-month follow-up
Snider and Lee24 2009Systematic review: seven papers covering four intervention programmesNone showed statistical significance (one small study group, one no-comparator group and two no difference found)Includes Zun et al team
Dicker et al 25 2009Descriptive: risk assess 12–30 yo and ‘wraparound’ services high-risk youth requireNo outcome measures, all process measures
Becker et al 12 2004Retrospective case–control: comparison of those undertaking the programme and those not undertaking the programme, mentoring with family for up to 1 year with crisis intervention specialists (those with experience of violence and specialist training)70% less likely to be rearrested, 60% less criminal involvement; no statistically significant difference in reinjury or death ratesOnly 112 participants across case and control
Cooper et al 26 2006RCT in over 18 s, second admission for violent injury;
case officer (social worker) and probation officer assigned in intervention arm
No difference in number of overall arrests, reduction in arrests for violenceNot confined purely to youth, less than 100 participants
Shribru et al 15 2007Retrospective comparative double-cohort study in 12–20 yo selected from hospital databaseThose on intervention programme had lower criminal justice involvement, more effective in younger participants, cost benefit for juvenile detention, no impact reinjury/deathBecker team again, 154 participants
Aboutanos et al 27 2011RCT of brief violence intervention and 6-month wraparound programme: 10–24 yoBetter hospitalisation use and risk factor reductionVery small numbers 36 vs 39 participants
  • ED, emergency department; RCT, randomised controlled trial; yo, year olds.