This annual report - Taranaki District Health Board

Park-Higgerson HK, et al. 2008. The evaluation of school-based violence prevention programs: a meta-analysis.Journal of School Health, 78(9), 465-79.This review assessed the effectiveness and characteristics of school-based violence prevention programmes. Fiveprogramme characteristics (the application of theory, the type of programme such as universal or selective, the numberof programmes such as single- or multiple approach interventions, the characteristics of the target population, and thetype of instructor) which could explain programme success were identified and used to generate hypotheses tested inthe meta-analysis. Twenty-six RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, the intervention groups did not havesignificant effects in reducing aggression and violence compared to the control groups (ES -0.09, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.05).There was no significant difference between interventions but programmes that used non–theory-based interventions,focused on at-risk and older children, and employed intervention specialists had slightly stronger effects in reducingaggression and violence. Interventions using a single approach had a mild positive effect compared to multi-componentinterventions (effect size -0.15, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.02), contrary to expectation. Small sample sizes and heterogeneity ofthe studies may have contributed to the lack of significant effects.Limbos MA, et al. 2007. Effectiveness of interventions to prevent youth violence a systematic review. AmericanJournal of Preventive Medicine, 33(1), 65-74.This review assessed the effectiveness of primary (implemented universally to prevent the onset of violence),secondary (implemented selectively with youth at increased risk for violence), and tertiary (focused on youth who hadalready engaged in violent behaviour) youth violence interventions. Forty-one studies (15 RCTs and 26 other) wereincluded in the review. The heterogeneity of the studies did not allow the authors to pool results and the studies wereassessed by ‘vote-counting’ to identify significant (one or more violence outcome indicators significantly different at thep