Details on article
|Author||Daykin, N.; De Viggiani, N.; Pilkington, P.; Moriarty, Y.
|Title||Music making for health, well-being and behaviour change in youth justice settings: a systematic review|
Daykin, N., De Viggiani, N., Pilkington, P., & Moriarty, Y. (2013). Music making for health, well-being and behaviour change in youth justice settings: a systematic review. Health promotion international, 28(2), 197-210.
|Keywords||young people; music; health inequalities; systematic review
|Link to article|| https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/das005
|Abstract||Youth justice is an important public health issue. There is growing recognition of the need to adopt effective, evidence-based strategies for working with young offenders. Music interventions may be particularly well suited to addressing risk factors in young people and reducing juvenile crime. This systematic review of international research seeks to contribute to the evidence base on the impact of music making on the health, well-being and behaviour of young offenders and those considered at risk of offending. It examines outcomes of music making identified in quantitative research and discusses theories from qualitative research that might help to understand the impact of music making in youth justice settings
|Metodology||The systematic review was undertaken between March and July 2011, and involved several stages including literature searching, relevance screening, critical appraisal, data extraction and narrative reporting of findings. An electronic search 11 databases was undertaken using the search strategy outlined in Figure 1. The full search was undertaken between 4th and 8th April 2011 and generated 567 hits, including 8 duplicates. The process identified 63 potentially relevant papers. A further 14 were identified from the reference lists of relevant papers. Full text screening of 731 relevant papers identified 11 relevant studies, including research in the UK, Australia, the USA, Canada and South Africa. However, all the quantitative studies had relatively low sample sizes and a limited focus, often on a single institution. This reflects the fact that they were small scale, often undertaken by practitioners in their place of work. There was a general lack of detail in the reporting of research design, recruitment and data collection. Common methodological weaknesses also characterize the qualitative reports, including a failure to sufficiently distinguish project activity from research, lack of detail about recruitment, sampling and data collection, and failure to report analysis and verification techniques. While study findings are often well contextualized in relation to the wider literature, it is not always possible to identify how well they are grounded in data analysis. These weaknesses make it difficult to assess the credibility of some results.