Protective factors, risk factors, and intervention strategies in the prevention and reduction of crime among adolescents and young adults aged 12–24 years: A scoping review protocol

Rosanna Mary Rooney; Amber Hopkins; Jacob Peckover; Kael Coleman; Rebecca Sampson; Rosa Alati; Sharinaz Hassan; Christina M Pollard; Jaya A R Dantas; Roanna Lobo; Zakia Jeemi; Sharyn Burns; Robert Cunningham; Stephen Monterosso; Lynne Millar; Sender Dovchin; Rhonda Oliver; Ranila Bhoyroo; Getinet Ayano

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0312684

. 2024 Nov 19;19(11):e0312684. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312684

Protective factors, risk factors, and intervention strategies in the prevention and reduction of crime among adolescents and young adults aged 12–24 years: A scoping review protocol

Rosanna Mary Rooney ^1,^*, Amber Hopkins ¹, Jacob Peckover ¹, Kael Coleman ¹, Rebecca Sampson ¹, Rosa Alati ^1,², Sharinaz Hassan ¹, Christina M Pollard ¹, Jaya A R Dantas ¹, Roanna Lobo ¹, Zakia Jeemi ¹, Sharyn Burns ¹, Robert Cunningham ³, Stephen Monterosso ³, Lynne Millar ^1,⁴, Sender Dovchin ⁵, Rhonda Oliver ⁵, Ranila Bhoyroo ⁶, Getinet Ayano ¹

Editor: AKM Alamgir⁷

¹School of Population Health, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

²Institute for Social Science Research, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

³Curtin Law School, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

⁴Telethon Kids Institute, Perth, WA, Australia

⁵School of Education, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia

⁶Mental Health Commission, WA, Australia

⁷Access Alliance Multicultural Health and Community Services: Access Alliance, CANADA

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

^✉

* E-mail: r.rooney@curtin.edu.au

Roles

Rosanna Mary Rooney: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Amber Hopkins: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Jacob Peckover: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Kael Coleman: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Rebecca Sampson: Methodology, Project administration, Writing – review & editing

Rosa Alati: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Sharinaz Hassan: Validation, Writing – review & editing

Christina M Pollard: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing

Jaya A R Dantas: Funding acquisition, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Roanna Lobo: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Zakia Jeemi: Resources, Writing – review & editing

Sharyn Burns: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Robert Cunningham: Funding acquisition, Resources, Writing – review & editing

Stephen Monterosso: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Resources, Validation, Writing – review & editing

Lynne Millar: Funding acquisition, Resources, Writing – review & editing

Sender Dovchin: Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Rhonda Oliver: Investigation, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Ranila Bhoyroo: Investigation, Writing – review & editing

Getinet Ayano: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

AKM Alamgir: Editor

PMCID: PMC11575785 PMID: 39561166

Abstract

Background

Evidence indicates that criminal behaviour in youth is linked with a range of negative physical, mental, and social health consequences. Despite a global decrease over the last 30 years, youth crime remains prevalent. Identifying and mapping the most robust risk and protective factors, and intervention strategies for youth crime could offer important keys for predicting future offense outcomes and assist in developing effective preventive and early intervention strategies. Current reviews in the area do not include literature discussing at risk populations such as First Nations groups from countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. This is a critical gap given the disproportionally high rates of incarceration and youth detention among First Nations people globally, particularly in countries with a colonial past. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and map the key risk and protective factors, along with intervention strategies, that are essential for recognizing adolescents and young adults at risk of crime.

Methods

This scoping review protocol has been developed in line with the Arksey and O’Malley framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Reviewers’ Manual. The review protocol was preregistered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/kg4q3). ProQuest, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycInfo were used to retrieve relevant articles. Grey literature was searched using Google searches and ProQuest dissertations databases. Original research articles examining protective factors, risk factors, and intervention strategies for prevention and reduction of crime in 12-24-year-olds were included. Two independent reviewers conducted eligibility decisions and data extraction. Findings has been reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

Conclusion

Anticipated findings suggest that current research has extensively examined factors across all levels of the socioecological model, from individual to community levels, revealing a predominant focus on individual-level predictors such as substance use, prior criminal history, and moral development. The review is expected to identify effective interventions that address critical factors within each domain, including Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC), which have shown promise in reducing youth crime. Additionally, it will likely highlight significant trends in risk and protective factors, such as the dual role of academic achievement—both as a risk and protective factor—and the impact of family-based interventions. The review will also address gaps in research, particularly regarding Indigenous youth, underscoring the need for targeted studies to better understand their unique challenges. These findings will guide future research and inform the development of comprehensive prevention and early intervention programs tailored to diverse youth populations.

Introduction

Crime among young people remains a pressing issue globally, with a particular emphasis on drug-related offenses such as possession and trafficking. While there has been a general decline in youth offending over the past three decades, especially in property-related and violent crimes, regional variations persist [1, 2]. For instance, in the United States, the number of violent crime arrests involving youth reached a new low by 2020, representing a 78 percent decrease from the 1994 peak and a 56 percent decline between 2010 and 2020 [2]. Despite this general decline, drug-related offenses have been increasing in certain regions, such as Europe. From 1990 to 2000, Western Europe saw a notable rise in drug offenses, correlated with the increased availability of drugs in European markets and the rise of drug use as shown by other indicators [1]. Factors contributing to this decline include adjustments in adolescent parenting, changes in socialisation practices, decreased youth alcohol consumption, and improved access to health services and welfare [3–6]. However, certain demographics, notably First Nations youth in countries like Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, continue to be disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system, indicating systemic issues that need addressing [7, 8].

Youth involvement in criminal behaviour carries severe physical, mental, and social health consequences, underscoring the urgent need for effective prevention and early intervention strategies. The health impacts of youth crime are profound: young offenders and victims often experience severe mental health issues, including increased rates of depression, anxiety, and trauma, which can have lasting effects on their development and overall well-being [9]. These mental health challenges are compounded by physical health problems such as injuries sustained during criminal activities and long-term health complications associated with substance abuse [10]. The link between drug use and criminal behaviour not only exacerbates these health issues but also perpetuates a cycle of addiction and offending.

The significance of addressing youth crime extends beyond individual health concerns to broader societal impacts. Families and communities face heightened healthcare costs and diminished quality of life due to the repercussions of youth offending. Communities experience reduced safety, increased fear, and economic costs associated with criminal justice responses. Risk factors contributing to youth offending are varied and include family dysfunction, exposure to abuse or community violence, substance misuse, and socioeconomic disparities [16–20]. hese factors highlight the complexity of the issue and the need for targeted prevention strategies that address both the immediate and underlying causes of youth criminal behaviour.

Understanding these severe consequences and diverse risk factors is crucial for developing comprehensive approaches to prevent youth crime and mitigate its impact on individuals and communities [11, 12]. Contact with the justice system often exacerbates these issues, leading to diminished autonomy, mental health struggles, and increased risk of self-harm or suicide attempts [13–16]. Protective factors such as education, positive peer or community relationships, and access to trauma-informed services can mitigate these risks and foster resilience in young people [17–20].

Effective intervention strategies for youth crime encompass both therapeutic and non-therapeutic approaches. Therapeutic interventions like cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT) have shown promise in addressing risk-taking behaviours and reducing offending, yet there remains debate about their overall effectiveness and applicability to diverse populations [17, 26]. Critics, such as Malvaso et al., argue that while these therapies can be beneficial, they may not adequately address broader socio-economic and systemic factors contributing to criminal behavior [27]. For instance, the efficacy of CBT and DBT can vary significantly based on individual differences and the quality of implementation, raising concerns about their universal applicability. Additionally, Functional Family Therapy (FFT), which offers a holistic approach by addressing familial dynamics and employing a multi-systemic and trauma-informed perspective, is praised for its comprehensive approach. However, challenges such as engaging all family members and maintaining consistent implementation can impact its success [26]. The debate also extends to the need for culturally safe practices, peer support, and flexible therapeutic approaches, which are crucial for effective interventions with at-risk youth but can be challenging to implement consistently [27]. These ongoing controversies highlight the complexities and varied outcomes associated with different therapeutic strategies, underscoring the need for continued evaluation and adaptation of interventions.

Aim and significance of study

Our preliminary review of the existing literature reveals a critical gap in meta-analyses or umbrella reviews specifically addressing risk and protective factors, as well as prevention strategies for youth crime, particularly for First Nations people who are disproportionately incarcerated [25, 28]. The existing research predominantly focuses on broad or non-specific populations, leaving a significant void in targeted analyses for marginalized groups. Identifying robust risk and protective factors is essential for developing precise predictive tools and effective intervention strategies. This scoping review aims to address this gap by systematically mapping the key risk and protective factors, as well as the intervention strategies, to prevent and reduce crime among youth aged 12–24 who are at risk of offending.

The significance of this study lies in its potential to provide a comprehensive overview of factors influencing youth crime, tailored to the unique needs of First Nations communities and other high-risk groups. By consolidating and synthesizing existing research, this review will offer critical insights that can guide the development of targeted prevention and early intervention programs. The findings are expected to inform policy, improve program design, and contribute to reducing youth crime rates. Ultimately, this study will establish a benchmark for future research, helping to bridge existing gaps and foster more effective and culturally relevant interventions.

Methods

The protocol design was guided by PRISMA guidelines (PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) [29] (S1 Fig) and the Arksey and O’Malley framework [30], which follows five steps: (i) identifying the research question; (ii) identifying relevant studies; (iii) study selection; (iv) charting the data; and (v) collating, summarising, and reporting results. The scoping review method was selected as it is useful for identifying gaps in, and the range of literature in an area [31]. This allows us to outline the knowledge gap that exists relating to intervention strategies for First Nations youth. The protocol was preregistered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/vka3p).

Step 1: Identification of the research questions

An appropriate set of research questions constitutes the foundation of a scoping review, influencing the literature explored and the data extracted [29, 30]. To gather a detailed understanding of the topic area and guide the development of the research questions, a preliminary literature review was conducted. It is recommended that research questions in a scoping review are broad and articulate the target population, concept and context [30]. Following these recommendations and considering data collected in the initial literature review, the following research questions were formulated:

What are the risk and protective factors influencing criminal behavior among adolescents and young adults aged 12 to 24?
What is the extent, range, and nature of the evidence on crime reduction and prevention strategies for adolescents and young adults aged 12 to 24?
Which intervention strategies are most promising for reducing and preventing crime among adolescents and young adults aged 12 to 24?

Step 2: Identifying relevant studies

Eligibility criteria

As recommended by the JBI Reviewers’ Manual [32, 33], the ‘Population Concept Context (PCC)’ framework informed the inclusion criteria. (see Table 1 for a summary of PCC inclusion criteria). The population of interest in this scoping review is youth aged between 12–24 years of age who have engaged in criminal behaviour or are deemed as being at risk of offending globally. Crime was defined as any of the following behaviours:

Table 1. Population, Concept and Context (PCC) inclusion criteria.

Population	Youth aged 12–24 years who have committed a crime
Concept	Risk factors
	Protective factors
	Intervention strategies
	Recidivism, persistent offending, and any other type of offending
Context	Global studies with observational and interventional designs
	Reported in the English language
	Grey and unpublished literature

Open in a new tab

Theft, robbery, and burglary
Intentionally causing harm or death to another person
Sexual assault and related offences
Dangerous or negligent acts endangering persons
Unlawful entry and break and enter offences
Traffic and vehicle regulatory offences
Offences against justice procedures.

Studies that examined risk factors, protective factors, and/or intervention strategies to prevent or reduce crime in the population of interest were all considered for selection. All types of offending (e.g., persistent, recidivism) were also considered for selection. Studies were either observational or interventional in design, as these appropriately aligned with the research questions. Studies from the following contexts were taken under consideration:

Global Context: Studies conducted across various countries and regions to provide a broad understanding of the issue.
Universal Interventions in the General Population: Interventions aimed at the entire population, not limited by specific characteristics, conditions, or risk factors. The term "general population" refers to individuals who are not specifically categorized by certain risk factors or conditions.
Prevention/Early Intervention in the General Population: Programs and strategies designed to prevent the onset of criminal behavior or address early signs of such behavior within the general population.
Targeted Interventions in Clinical and Population-Based Settings: Interventions specifically aimed at high-risk groups or those already engaged in offending behavior, within both clinical settings (e.g., mental health services) and broader community-based contexts.
Interventions for First Nations Populations: Studies focused on interventions specifically designed for Indigenous communities, recognizing the unique cultural and social contexts of these groups.
Grey Literature: Inclusion of non-peer-reviewed sources, such as reports, theses, and government publications, to capture a wider range of evidence.
No Date Restriction: Studies from any publication year were eligible, allowing for a comprehensive review of the literature
Language: Only studies published in English were considered, to ensure accessibility and comprehension.

Information sources and search strategy

The search strategy (see Table 2) has been developed in collaboration with an academic librarian using keywords that adhere to the outlined inclusion criteria; this process was guided by the JBI manuals [32, 33]. This search strategy was configured for each of the following databases that are to be used: ProQuest, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO. Grey and unpublished literature were searched using Google search, and ProQuest dissertations databases. All identified literature were stored and managed through the EndNote v.20.2 software [34]. The final details regarding any adjustments to the search strategy or search dates were delineated in the published scoping review.

Table 2.

No.	Search topic	Search keywords (titles, abstracts, general keywords, and subject headings)
1	Condition/outcome of interest	(("crime"[MeSH Terms] OR "crime"[All Fields] OR "crimes"[All Fields] OR "crime s"[All Fields] OR ("recidivate"[All Fields] OR "recidivated"[All Fields] OR "recidivating"[All Fields] OR "recidivism"[MeSH Terms] OR "recidivism"[All Fields] OR "recidivisms"[All Fields]) OR ("criminals"[MeSH Terms] OR "criminals"[All Fields] OR "offender"[All Fields] OR "offenders"[All Fields] OR "offend"[All Fields] OR "offended"[All Fields] OR "offender s"[All Fields] OR "offending"[All Fields] OR "offends"[All Fields]) OR ("delinquencies"[All Fields] OR "delinquency"[All Fields] OR "delinquent"[All Fields] OR "delinquents"[All Fields]) OR (("delinquencies"[All Fields] OR "delinquency"[All Fields] OR "delinquent"[All Fields] OR "delinquents"[All Fields]) AND ("behavior"[MeSH Terms] OR "behavior"[All Fields] OR "behavioral"[All Fields] OR "behavioural"[All Fields] OR "behavior s"[All Fields] OR "behaviorally"[All Fields] OR "behaviour"[All Fields] OR "behaviourally"[All Fields] OR "behaviours"[All Fields] OR "behaviors"[All Fields] OR "pattern"[All Fields] OR "pattern s"[All Fields] OR "patternability"[All Fields] OR "patternable"[All Fields] OR "patterned"[All Fields] OR "patterning"[All Fields] OR "patternings"[All Fields] OR "patterns"[All Fields])) OR ("offense"[All Fields] OR "offenses"[All Fields] OR "offensive"[All Fields] OR "offensives"[All Fields]))
2	Population	("juvenile"[All Fields] OR "juvenile s"[All Fields] OR "juveniles"[All Fields] OR "juvenility"[All Fields] OR ("adolescent"[MeSH Terms] OR "adolescent"[All Fields] OR "youth"[All Fields] OR "youths"[All Fields] OR "youth s"[All Fields]) OR ("adolescences"[All Fields] OR "adolescency"[All Fields] OR "adolescent"[MeSH Terms] OR "adolescent"[All Fields] OR "adolescence"[All Fields] OR "adolescents"[All Fields] OR "adolescent s"[All Fields]) OR ("young adult"[MeSH Terms] OR ("young"[All Fields] AND "adult"[All Fields]) OR "young adult"[All Fields]) OR ("child"[MeSH Terms] OR "child"[All Fields] OR "children"[All Fields] OR "child s"[All Fields] OR "children s"[All Fields] OR "childrens"[All Fields] OR "childs"[All Fields]) OR (("young"[All Fields] OR "youngs"[All Fields]) AND ("people s"[All Fields] OR "peopled"[All Fields] OR "peopling"[All Fields] OR "persons"[MeSH Terms] OR "persons"[All Fields] OR "people"[All Fields] OR "peoples"[All Fields])) OR ("adolescent"[MeSH Terms] OR "adolescent"[All Fields] OR "teen"[All Fields]))
3	Exposure/context	("predictor"[All Fields] OR "predictors"[All Fields] OR ("risk"[MeSH Terms] OR "risk"[All Fields]) OR ("protective factors"[MeSH Terms] OR ("protective"[All Fields] AND "factors"[All Fields]) OR "protective factors"[All Fields]) OR ("risk factors"[MeSH Terms] OR ("risk"[All Fields] AND "factors"[All Fields]) OR "risk factors"[All Fields]) OR (("associability"[All Fields] OR "associational"[All Fields] OR "associative"[All Fields] OR "associatively"[All Fields] OR "associativity"[All Fields] OR "associator"[All Fields] OR "associators"[All Fields]) AND ("factor"[All Fields] OR "factor s"[All Fields] OR "factors"[All Fields])) OR ("analysis"[MeSH Subheading] OR "analysis"[All Fields] OR "determination"[All Fields] OR "determinant"[All Fields] OR "determinants"[All Fields] OR "determinate"[All Fields] OR "determinated"[All Fields] OR "determinates"[All Fields] OR "determinating"[All Fields] OR "determinations"[All Fields] OR "determine"[All Fields] OR "determined"[All Fields] OR "determines"[All Fields] OR "determining"[All Fields]) OR ("correlate"[All Fields] OR "correlated"[All Fields] OR "correlates"[All Fields] OR "correlating"[All Fields] OR "correlation"[All Fields] OR "correlation s"[All Fields] OR "correlations"[All Fields] OR "correlative"[All Fields] OR "correlatives"[All Fields]) OR ("factor"[All Fields] OR "factor s"[All Fields] OR "factors"[All Fields]))
4	Intervention strategies	("intervention s"[All Fields] OR "interventions"[All Fields] OR "interventive"[All Fields] OR "methods"[MeSH Terms] OR "methods"[All Fields] OR "intervention"[All Fields] OR "interventional"[All Fields] OR ("methods"[MeSH Terms] OR "methods"[All Fields] OR ("intervention"[All Fields] AND "strategies"[All Fields]) OR "intervention strategies"[All Fields]) OR ("program"[All Fields] OR "program s"[All Fields] OR "programe"[All Fields] OR "programmed"[All Fields] OR "programmes"[All Fields] OR "programming"[All Fields] OR "programmability"[All Fields] OR "programmable"[All Fields] OR "programmably"[All Fields] OR "programme"[All Fields] OR "programmes"[All Fields] OR "programmed"[All Fields] OR "programmer"[All Fields] OR "programmer s"[All Fields] OR "programmers"[All Fields] OR "programmes"[All Fields] OR "programming"[All Fields] OR "programmings"[All Fields] OR "programs"[All Fields]) OR ("program"[All Fields] OR "program s"[All Fields] OR "programe"[All Fields] OR "programmed"[All Fields] OR "programes"[All Fields] OR "programing"[All Fields] OR "programmability"[All Fields] OR "programmable"[All Fields] OR "programmably"[All Fields] OR "programme"[All Fields] OR "programme s"[All Fields] OR "programmed"[All Fields] OR "programmer"[All Fields] OR "programmer s"[All Fields] OR "programmers"[All Fields] OR "programmes"[All Fields] OR "programming"[All Fields] OR "programmings"[All Fields] OR "programs"[All Fields]) OR ("program"[All Fields] OR "program s"[All Fields] OR "programe"[All Fields] OR "programed"[All Fields] OR "programes"[All Fields] OR "programing"[All Fields] OR "programmability"[All Fields] OR "programmable"[All Fields] OR "programmably"[All Fields] OR "programme"[All Fields] OR "programme s"[All Fields] OR "programmed"[All Fields] OR "programmer"[All Fields] OR "programmer s"[All Fields] OR "programmers"[All Fields] OR "programmes"[All Fields] OR "programming"[All Fields] OR "programmings"[All Fields] OR "programs"[All Fields]))
5	Prevent or reduce	("reduce"[All Fields] OR "reduced"[All Fields] OR "reduces"[All Fields] OR "reducing"[All Fields] OR ("prevent"[All Fields] OR "preventability"[All Fields] OR "preventable"[All Fields] OR "preventative"[All Fields] OR "preventatively"[All Fields] OR "preventatives"[All Fields] OR "prevented"[All Fields] OR "preventing"[All Fields] OR "prevention and control"[MeSH Subheading] OR ("prevention"[All Fields] AND "control"[All Fields]) OR "prevention and control"[All Fields] OR "prevention"[All Fields] OR "prevention s"[All Fields] OR "preventions"[All Fields] OR "preventive"[All Fields] OR "preventively"[All Fields] OR "preventives"[All Fields] OR "prevents"[All Fields]))
Final search query	The intersection of five topics	1 AND 2 AND 3 AND 4 AND 5

Open in a new tab

Step 3: Study selection

One author performed the search, de-duplication, and collecting of literature found following the search strategy. Two authors independently screened abstracts to identify whether the necessary inclusion criteria have been met. Sources that do not meet the criteria were excluded from further review. The same two authors then reviewed the full texts of retained articles to confirm that inclusion criteria is met. Any inter-reviewer disagreements were discussed, including a third reviewer if needed, until a consensus is reached.

Step 4: Charting the data

Two reviewers were engaged in the data charting process. One reviewer extracted the data items recommended by the JBI Manual [35] and relevant to the research questions from each included source, while the second reviewer verified the accuracy and completeness of the data entry in the spreadsheet. Prior to this, the below data items were added to a template and piloted with a sample of included records and any necessary adjustments could be made before full charting to ensure a consistent and singular approach to charting is established.

Data items

Specific data that were extracted from eligible studies include:

a. Citation details (author/s, title, date of publication)
b. Country
c. Study design and context
d. Participant details (age, gender, sample size, Indigenous identity)
e. History of offending or risk identified
f. Exposure and outcome assessment

In the context of this scoping review, the exposure and outcome assessment process should align with the PCC (Population, Concept, Context) framework rather than the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework, which is typically used for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PCC framework is more suitable for scoping reviews as it allows for broader exploration of the available literature without the strict comparison of interventions required by PICO.

Under the PCC framework, exposure is defined in terms of the specific characteristics or conditions within the population of interest (e.g., demographic factors, socio-economic status, or environmental factors) that may influence the risk of engaging in criminal behavior. Outcomes refer to the range of consequences or effects observed within the population, including rates of offending, recidivism, or the success of intervention strategies.

Given the nature of a scoping review, the emphasis is placed on mapping and summarizing the existing evidence, identifying gaps in the literature, and understanding the context in which these exposures and outcomes are observed. Therefore, authors should ensure that the assessment process remains consistent with the PCC framework by focusing on the conceptual relationships and broader context of the findings rather than strictly comparing interventions and their outcomes.

g. Measure of association
h. Confounders adjusted for
i. Other characteristics relevant to the research questions

Step 5: Collating, summarising, and reporting the results

The finding has been reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews [36] and the flow chart of screening and data identification processes was presented using PRISMA-ScR (Fig 1). The results of the scoping review were organised and presented using a flow diagram, table, and text. A flow diagram has been used to visualise the implementation of the search strategy and the process of study selection, with accompanying text to provide descriptive statistics on the number of studies in each stage. In our preliminary systematic search of electronic databases and manual search of evidence, we found 9,769 sources, of which 235 met the predefined criteria (Fig 1). A table was used to summarise study characteristics and provide a brief overview of the findings for each included study. Text included a narrative synthesis of the review findings, with a specific focus on the research questions addressed. A discussion of identified gaps in the research was included, as well as general limitations noted across the included studies. The socio-ecological framework specified in McLeroy et al. (1988) was used as a guide to characterise the existing information and classify the types of risk factors [37].

Critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence

As suggested by the Arksey and O’Malley framework (2005) [30], this scoping review does not include a formal risk of bias or quality assessment for the included studies [30]. This approach is justified by the specific objectives of a scoping review, which are to map the existing literature, identify key concepts, and determine the scope of research on a given topic, rather than to evaluate the methodological quality of individual studies.

Scoping reviews are designed to provide a comprehensive overview of the breadth of research rather than in-depth evaluations of study quality. This focus on breadth aligns with the aim of the scoping review to capture a wide range of literature and identify gaps in research, which is particularly important when exploring diverse and evolving fields [31].

Moreover, the research questions formulated for this review are concerned with the scope and nature of evidence related to risk factors, protective factors, and intervention strategies rather than the quality of the studies themselves. By including a broad spectrum of studies, the review seeks to offer an extensive overview of the evidence available without imposing restrictive criteria that could limit the inclusion of potentially relevant research [32].

Thus, the decision to omit a risk of bias or quality assessment is in line with the methodological approach of scoping reviews, which prioritize inclusivity and comprehensiveness over critical appraisal. This approach is supported by the framework and methodology outlined by Levac et al., which underscores the importance of capturing the breadth of research to inform future studies and identify areas requiring further investigation [31].

Discussion

Given the high degree of consequence that surrounds youth crime globally, it is critical to review factors that can both prevent criminal behaviour in youth through addressing key risk and protective factors and early intervention strategies. It is particularly concerning that despite disproportionate rates of incarceration of First Nations youth, especially in countries with a colonial past, there have been no meta-analyses or umbrella reviews of risk, protective or intervention strategies in First Nations youth aimed at preventing or reducing crime globally. In the absence of these reviews, it is therefore essential to perform a scoping review of all relevant grey literature, published and unpublished research in order to evidence of what is working. The synthesis of these results contributed towards the planning of intervention strategies that can be used to prevent and reduce crime in at risk populations. The findings of the scoping review will be disseminated through publication in high impact peer reviewed journals and communicated to relevant services, organisations and communities through reports, community meetings, social media channels, and newsletters.

In our preliminary analyses, we identified several critical risk factors that significantly contribute to youth crime. Among these, substance use emerged as a predominant predictor, highlighting the role of addiction and substance abuse in escalating criminal behavior [38–40]. Lower academic achievement was also identified as a key risk factor, where youth with poor academic performance were more likely to engage in criminal activities, underscoring the importance of educational support and interventions [38–40]. Poor parental supervision was another significant factor, with inadequate parental oversight often leading to increased risk of youth involvement in crime [38–40]. Additionally, social disadvantage, including factors such as low income, unemployment, and living in disadvantaged neighborhoods, was strongly associated with higher levels of criminal behavior among youth [38–40]. To mitigate these risks, our analysis revealed two particularly effective protective interventions. The first is multisystemic therapy (MST), an evidence-based approach that targets the various interconnected factors contributing to delinquent behavior [41]. MST involves intensive interventions at the family and community levels, aiming to strengthen family dynamics, improve communication, and reduce the influence of negative peer groups. Studies consistently show that youth who undergo MST exhibit significantly lower levels of criminal activity [41].

The second intervention is Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC), which provides specialized foster care combined with comprehensive therapeutic interventions for at-risk youth [42]. MTFC is designed to address behavioral issues through structured support, including close supervision, consistent discipline, and positive reinforcement within a foster care setting. Research indicates that MTFC effectively reduces delinquent behavior and improves overall outcomes for youth involved in the program [42].

These findings suggest that addressing the identified risk factors through targeted interventions like MST and MTFC can play a crucial role in reducing youth crime and supporting at-risk individuals in developing healthier, more positive life trajectories [41, 42].

Limitations

A potential limitation of the scoping review is that there may be a large volume of literature which may result in limited depth or review for each individual study. In addition, a further limitation is that as all types of literature were considered, it may be considered less rigorous than a systematic review, meta-analysis, or umbrella review. This may limit the impact on policy and practice, however, it is an important starting point in providing an overview of the current risk, protective and intervention strategies that have been used to prevent and reduce offending in youth at risk of crime including First Nations populations.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. PRISMA checklist for the flow diagram of the literature review.

(PDF)

pone.0312684.s001.pdf^{(556.1KB, pdf)}

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study is funded by the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources Safer Communities Fund, Australia. The funder had no further role in data collection, study design, analyses, and interpretation of the findings.

References

1.Aebi MF. Crime trends in Western Europe from 1990 to 2000. European journal on criminal policy and research. 2004;10:163–86. [Google Scholar]
2.Puzzanchera CM. Trends in youth arrests for violent crimes: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile …; 2022. [Google Scholar]
3.Baumer EP, Cundiff K, Luo L. The contemporary transformation of American youth: An analysis of change in the prevalence of delinquency, 1991–2015. Criminology. 2021;59(1):109–36. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12264 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Organization WH. European report on preventing violence and knife crime among young people: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2010. [Google Scholar]
5.Mulye TP, Park MJ, Nelson CD, Adams SH, Irwin CE Jr, Brindis CD. Trends in adolescent and young adult health in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2009;45(1):8–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Young S, Greer B, Church R. Juvenile delinquency, welfare, justice and therapeutic interventions: a global perspective. BJPsych bulletin. 2017;41(1):21–9. doi: 10.1192/pb.bp.115.052274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Reitano J. Adult correctional statistics in Canada, 2015/2016. Statistics Canada Ottawa, ON; 2017. [Google Scholar]
8.Georg S. Youth detention population in Australia 2019: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2020. [Google Scholar]
9.de Magalhães Narvaez JC, Moreira CG, da Rosa FR. Crime, Illegal Drugs, and Mental Health. In: Okkels N, Kristiansen CB, Munk-Jørgensen P, editors. Mental Health and Illness in the City. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2017. p. 169–90. [Google Scholar]
10.Butler SM. How Better Health Strategies Could Reduce Juvenile Crime. JAMA Health Forum. 2024;5(8):e243371–e. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.3371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Payne JL, Roffey N. Youth crime as a ‘way of life’? Prevalence and criminal career correlates among a sample of juvenile detainees in Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 2020;53(4):460–76. [Google Scholar]
12.Youth detention population in Australia 2022. Available online: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/youth-justice/youth-detention-population-in-australia-2022/contents/summary. [Google Scholar]
13.Dickson JM, Cruise K, McCall CA, Taylor PJ. A systematic review of the antecedents and prevalence of suicide, self-harm and suicide ideation in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2019;16(17):3154. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16173154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Shepherd S, Spivak B, Borschmann R, Kinner SA, Hachtel H. Correlates of self-harm and suicide attempts in justice-involved young people. PLoS one. 2018;13(2):e0193172. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Basto-Pereira M, Maia ÂdC. Early adversity and adult delinquency: The mediational role of mental health in youth offenders. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 2019;24:2805–10. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232018248.27142017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Wolff KT, Cuevas C, Intravia J, Baglivio MT, Epps N. The effects of neighborhood context on exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACE) among adolescents involved in the juvenile justice system: Latent classes and contextual effects. Journal of youth and adolescence. 2018;47(11):2279–300. doi: 10.1007/s10964-018-0887-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Hodgkinson R, Beattie S, Roberts R, Hardy L. Psychological resilience interventions to reduce recidivism in young people: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review. 2021;6(4):333–57. [Google Scholar]
18.Song H, Lee Y, Kim J. Gender differences in the link between cyberbullying and parental supervision trajectories. Crime & Delinquency. 2020;66(13–14):1914–36. [Google Scholar]
19.Barnert ES, Perry R, Azzi VF, Shetgiri R, Ryan G, Dudovitz R, et al. Incarcerated youths’ perspectives on protective factors and risk factors for juvenile offending: A qualitative analysis. American journal of public health. 2015;105(7):1365–71. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Schroeder K, Noll JG, Henry KA, Suglia SF, Sarwer DB. Trauma-informed neighborhoods: Making the built environment trauma-informed. Preventive medicine reports. 2021;23:101501. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21.Armelius BÅ, Andreassen TH. Cognitive‐behavioral treatment for antisocial behavior in youth in residential treatment. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2007;3(1):1–57. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005650.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Trupin EW, Stewart DG, Beach B, Boesky L. Effectiveness of a dialectical behaviour therapy program for incarcerated female juvenile offenders. Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 2002;7(3):121–7. [Google Scholar]
23.Vardanian MM, Scavenius C, Granski M, Chacko A. An international examination of the effectiveness of functional family therapy (FFT) in a Danish community sample. Journal of marital and family therapy. 2020;46(2):289–303. doi: 10.1111/jmft.12405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Datchi CC, Sexton TL. Can family therapy have an effect on adult criminal conduct? Initial evaluation of functional family therapy. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice. 2013;2(4):278. [Google Scholar]
25.Alegria M, Falgas‐Bague I, Fong Hf Engagement of ethnic minorities in mental health care. World Psychiatry. 2020;19(1):35. doi: 10.1002/wps.20695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Kerig PK, Ford JD, Alexander AR, Modrowski CA. Interventions for trauma-affected youth in the juvenile justice system: An overview of diagnostic, ethical, and clinical challenges and evidence-based treatments. Psychological Injury and Law. 2024:1–22. [Google Scholar]
27.Malvaso CG, Day A, Boyd CM. The Outcomes of Trauma-Informed Practice in Youth Justice: An Umbrella Review. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s40653-024-00634-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Scott T, Brown SL. Risks, strengths, gender, and recidivism among justice-involved youth: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2018;86(11):931. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000343 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine. 2018;169(7):467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Arksey H O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32. [Google Scholar]
31.Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation science. 2010;5:1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation. 2015;13(3):141–6. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Godfrey C. Exploring the world “out there”: the use of scoping reviews in education research. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2020;18(5):859–60. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00134 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Team T. EndNote. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate. 2021;12. [Google Scholar]
35.Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis JBI, 2020. [Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658.JBIMES-20-01, 2020. [Google Scholar]
36.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. Epub 2018/09/05. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health education quarterly. 1988;15(4):351–77. doi: 10.1177/109019818801500401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Applegate BK, Santana S. Intervening with youthful substance abusers: A preliminary analysis of a juvenile drug court. Justice System Journal. 2000;21(3):281–300. [Google Scholar]
39.Rowe RC. Predictors of criminal offending: Evaluating measures of risk/needs, psychopathy, and disruptive behaviour disorders: Carleton University; 2002. [Google Scholar]
40.Yessine AK, Bonta J. The offending trajectories of youthful Aboriginal offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice. 2009;51(4):435–72. [Google Scholar]
41.Van der Stouwe T, Asscher JJ, Stams GJJ, Deković M, van der Laan PH. The effectiveness of multisystemic therapy (MST): A meta-analysis. Clinical psychology review. 2014;34(6):468–81. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Fisher PA, Chamberlain P. Multidimensional treatment foster care: A program for intensive parenting, family support, and skill building. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2000;8(3):155–64. [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312684.r001

Decision Letter 0

Johannes John-Langba

19 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-15234Protective factors, risk factors, and intervention strategies in the prevention and reduction of crime in 12–24-year-old: A Scoping Review ProtocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rooney,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 04 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Johannes John-Langba, Ph.D., M.P.H., M.S.W

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Note from Emily Chenette, Editor in Chief of PLOS ONE, and Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, Director of Open Research Solutions at PLOS: Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

3. Please note that funding information should not appear in any section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript.

4. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

Additional Editor Comments:

Both reviewers however think that the manuscript is presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English. But although one of the reviewers evaluates the manuscript as technically sound with data that supports the conclusions, both reviewers howefer reported that all data underlying the findings in their manuscript have not been made fully available.

You are therefore invited to undertake a major revision of the manuscript and submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised by both reviwers.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Based on the Abstract/Introduction, the study (Systematic Review) is an important topic. However, the manuscript is a bit confusing, overall.

1. Pages 1-3 are duplicated within the manuscript. Also, there is no clear Abstract, as the Abstract and Introduction are combined.

2. On the bottom of page 6, last paragraph, there needs to be a subheading, "Aim of Study" or "Purpose of Study."

3. Throughout the manuscript, there are both present and future tenses. If the study/review has already been conducted, it should be past tense.

4. There is no Findings section. What did you researchers find/conclude within the study/review? What do the Findings suggest in relationship to any proposed questions?

5. The last paragraph discusses limitations, but what are the limitations based on?

Based on what was presented, I do not recommend this manuscript for publication. However, through major revisions it could be and resubmitted and reviewed.

Reviewer #2: Reviewer comments: Protective factors, risk factors, and intervention strategies in the prevention and reduction of crime in 12–24-year-old: A Scoping Review Protocol

Identifying risk factors and developing risk typologies is an important area of study in crime prevention and reduction among youth. The authors have presented the gaps in the literature on at risk populations such as First Nations groups from countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. As such, this paper presents the first scoping review of primary studies of protective factors, risk factors, and intervention strategies in the prevention and reduction of crime in 12-24-year-olds, inclusive of First Nations communities. The paper is well written and is addressing a very important topic, given that crime among young people as young as 12 has child protection implications and in general has social and economic consequences. However, paper has some important limitations especially regarding the method mentioned below.

Please find my comments following my review.

Abstract

1. Authors to follow the guidelines on writing an unstructured abstract in PLOS One

2. Provide a concise description of the main aim/objective of the scoping review and state this as an aim. E.g. The aim of this scoping review is…

Introduction

The introduction section can be synthesised into four succinct paragraphs

1. Paragraph one introduces the main problem

i. Youth offending and why it is a problem?

ii. What have other countries found about youth offending, risk factors and protective factors ?

iii. How have other countries dealt with youth offending and how has the identification of protective and risk factors influenced youth offending interventions?

2. Paragraph two looks at the specific problem from a contextual perspective (i.e. among First Nations communities)

i. What is the prevalence of youth offending among First Nations communities?

3. Paragraph three introduces the gap in the literature

4. Paragraph four explain/justify why the review questions/objectives lend themselves to a scoping review approach?

Methods

1. Authors to follow the PLOS One (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist on structuring the methods section

a. Protocol and registration

b. Eligibility criteria

c. Information sources

d. Search

e. Selection of sources of evidence

f. Data charting process

g. Data items

h. Critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence

i. Synthesis of results

2. Outline what the five steps of the Arksey and O’Malley framework are

3. What framework was used to inform the development of the research questions?

4. Clarify if the data extraction process is informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute’s template for data extraction or which tool will be used for this.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments PONE-D-23-15234.pdf

pone.0312684.s002.pdf^{(78.5KB, pdf)}

PLoS One. 2024 Nov 19;19(11):e0312684. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312684.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

2 May 2024

Attached as a point-by-point response letter.

Attachment

Submitted filename: ReviewerResponse_Letter (2).docx

pone.0312684.s003.docx^{(83.5KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312684.r003

Decision Letter 1

AKM Alamgir

19 Aug 2024

PONE-D-23-15234R1Protective factors, risk factors, and intervention strategies in the prevention and reduction of crime in 12–24-year-old: A Scoping Review ProtocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rooney,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 03 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

AKM Alamgir, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: N/A

Reviewer #4: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: 2. This manuscript presents a well-organized and methodologically sound scoping review protocol. The authors have used established frameworks, such as the Arksey and O'Malley framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines which are appropriate for the study. While this is a protocol and does not yet include data or conclusions, the outlined plan is robust and should effectively guide the research process.

3. Given that this is a scoping review protocol, statistical analysis is not conducted. The manuscript is focused on mapping existing literature, identify gaps and provide an overview of key concepts and evidence.

4. Since this is a protocol, no findings or data are presented yet. Once the scoping review is completed, the authors will need to ensure that all data underlying their results are made fully available in accordance to PLOS's data availability requirement.

5. The manuscript is clearly written, well structured and easy to follow. The authors have effectively communicated their research plan, and the language used is precise and professional.

General comments: Overall, this manuscript outlines a clear and comprehensive protocol for conducting a scoping review on youth crime, with a particular emphasis on identifying key risk and protective factors as well as intervention strategies, especially for First Nations Populations. The methodology is appropriate, and the writing is clear.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes: Ms. Susan Mary Pradhan

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: REVIEWERS COMMENTS.pdf

pone.0312684.s004.pdf^{(273KB, pdf)}

PLoS One. 2024 Nov 19;19(11):e0312684. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312684.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

11 Sep 2024

Attached as a point-by-point response letter.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Point-by-point response factors 11.09.2024.pdf

pone.0312684.s005.pdf^{(283.4KB, pdf)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312684.r005

Decision Letter 2

AKM Alamgir

6 Oct 2024

PONE-D-23-15234R2Protective factors, risk factors, and intervention Strategies in the prevention and reduction of crime among adolescents and young adults aged 12-24 years: A scoping review protocolPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rooney,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 20 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

AKM Alamgir, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #3: Dear Authors,

I would like to commend you all for the effort in improving your review protocol manuscript and appreciate the opportunity to review your impeccable work.

Please see the minor revisions outlined below:

Abstract:

• Conclusion (Page 2, lines 63-65): Remove the sentence: “This scoping review protocol aims to systematically map key risk and protective factors, as well as intervention strategies, for preventing and reducing youth crime, including among First Nations populations.”

• Conclusion (revision): Remove the dash in “model—from” throughout the paragraph, as it does not reflect a professional writing style:

“Anticipated findings suggest that current research has extensively examined factors across all levels of the socioecological model, from individual to community levels, revealing a predominant focus on individual-level predictors such as substance use, prior criminal history, and moral development. The review is expected to identify effective interventions that address critical factors within each domain, including Multisystemic Therapy (MST) and Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care (MTFC), which have shown promise in reducing youth crime. Additionally, it will likely highlight significant trends in risk and protective factors, such as the dual role of academic achievement—both as a risk and protective factor—and the impact of family-based interventions. The review will also address gaps in research, particularly regarding Indigenous youth, underscoring the need for targeted studies to better understand their unique challenges. These findings will guide future research and inform the development of comprehensive prevention and early intervention programs tailored to diverse youth populations.”

• Ensure that the abstract does not exceed 300 words, as per the journal's guidelines:

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Introduction:

• Page 5 (Introduction, line 129): Include the author’s surname in the sentence: “Critics argue that…”.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Critical Appraisal of Individual Sources of Evidence:

• Revise the structure of the following sentence (Page 12, Line 291): “In accordance with the Arksey and O’Malley framework (2005) [30], the scoping review does not involve a formal risk of bias or quality assessment of included sources.”

• Replace the term “Forgo” in the sentence on Page 12, line 305: “Thus, the decision to forgo a risk of bias….” with a more alternative term that will accommodate non-academic audience.

• Adhere to the journal’s in-text referencing guidelines: “This approach is supported by the framework and methodology outlined by Levac et al. (2010)...”

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

PRISMA Flowchart:

• (Page 19, lines 475-476): In the flowchart, add a category for duplicates removed during the IDENTIFICATION phase to confirm whether additional records identified were included in the total screened records.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

• The manuscript outlines a clear and robust protocol for conducting a scoping review on this topical area. Once the analysis is completed, ensure that the results are made accessible in appropriate repositories.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #3: No

**********

PLoS One. 2024 Nov 19;19(11):e0312684. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312684.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2

9 Oct 2024

Attached as point-point response letter.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Point-by-point response factors_v3. 08.10.24.docx

pone.0312684.s006.docx^{(44.5KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312684.r007

Decision Letter 3

AKM Alamgir

11 Oct 2024

Protective factors, risk factors, and intervention Strategies in the prevention and reduction of crime among adolescents and young adults aged 12-24 years: A scoping review protocol

PONE-D-23-15234R3

Dear Dr. Rooney,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

AKM Alamgir, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312684.r008

Acceptance letter

AKM Alamgir

8 Nov 2024

PONE-D-23-15234R3

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rooney,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr AKM Alamgir

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Fig. PRISMA checklist for the flow diagram of the literature review.

(PDF)

pone.0312684.s001.pdf^{(556.1KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewer comments PONE-D-23-15234.pdf

pone.0312684.s002.pdf^{(78.5KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: ReviewerResponse_Letter (2).docx

pone.0312684.s003.docx^{(83.5KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: REVIEWERS COMMENTS.pdf

pone.0312684.s004.pdf^{(273KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Point-by-point response factors 11.09.2024.pdf

pone.0312684.s005.pdf^{(283.4KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Point-by-point response factors_v3. 08.10.24.docx

pone.0312684.s006.docx^{(44.5KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

[pone.0312684.ref001] 1.Aebi MF. Crime trends in Western Europe from 1990 to 2000. European journal on criminal policy and research. 2004;10:163–86. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref002] 2.Puzzanchera CM. Trends in youth arrests for violent crimes: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile …; 2022. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref003] 3.Baumer EP, Cundiff K, Luo L. The contemporary transformation of American youth: An analysis of change in the prevalence of delinquency, 1991–2015. Criminology. 2021;59(1):109–36. doi: 10.1111/1745-9125.12264 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref004] 4.Organization WH. European report on preventing violence and knife crime among young people: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2010. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref005] 5.Mulye TP, Park MJ, Nelson CD, Adams SH, Irwin CE Jr, Brindis CD. Trends in adolescent and young adult health in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2009;45(1):8–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref006] 6.Young S, Greer B, Church R. Juvenile delinquency, welfare, justice and therapeutic interventions: a global perspective. BJPsych bulletin. 2017;41(1):21–9. doi: 10.1192/pb.bp.115.052274 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref007] 7.Reitano J. Adult correctional statistics in Canada, 2015/2016. Statistics Canada Ottawa, ON; 2017. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref008] 8.Georg S. Youth detention population in Australia 2019: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2020. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref009] 9.de Magalhães Narvaez JC, Moreira CG, da Rosa FR. Crime, Illegal Drugs, and Mental Health. In: Okkels N, Kristiansen CB, Munk-Jørgensen P, editors. Mental Health and Illness in the City. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2017. p. 169–90. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref010] 10.Butler SM. How Better Health Strategies Could Reduce Juvenile Crime. JAMA Health Forum. 2024;5(8):e243371–e. doi: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2024.3371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref011] 11.Payne JL, Roffey N. Youth crime as a ‘way of life’? Prevalence and criminal career correlates among a sample of juvenile detainees in Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology. 2020;53(4):460–76. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref012] 12.Youth detention population in Australia 2022. Available online: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/youth-justice/youth-detention-population-in-australia-2022/contents/summary. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref013] 13.Dickson JM, Cruise K, McCall CA, Taylor PJ. A systematic review of the antecedents and prevalence of suicide, self-harm and suicide ideation in Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth. International journal of environmental research and public health. 2019;16(17):3154. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16173154 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref014] 14.Shepherd S, Spivak B, Borschmann R, Kinner SA, Hachtel H. Correlates of self-harm and suicide attempts in justice-involved young people. PLoS one. 2018;13(2):e0193172. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref015] 15.Basto-Pereira M, Maia ÂdC. Early adversity and adult delinquency: The mediational role of mental health in youth offenders. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva. 2019;24:2805–10. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232018248.27142017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref016] 16.Wolff KT, Cuevas C, Intravia J, Baglivio MT, Epps N. The effects of neighborhood context on exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACE) among adolescents involved in the juvenile justice system: Latent classes and contextual effects. Journal of youth and adolescence. 2018;47(11):2279–300. doi: 10.1007/s10964-018-0887-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref017] 17.Hodgkinson R, Beattie S, Roberts R, Hardy L. Psychological resilience interventions to reduce recidivism in young people: A systematic review. Adolescent Research Review. 2021;6(4):333–57. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref018] 18.Song H, Lee Y, Kim J. Gender differences in the link between cyberbullying and parental supervision trajectories. Crime & Delinquency. 2020;66(13–14):1914–36. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref019] 19.Barnert ES, Perry R, Azzi VF, Shetgiri R, Ryan G, Dudovitz R, et al. Incarcerated youths’ perspectives on protective factors and risk factors for juvenile offending: A qualitative analysis. American journal of public health. 2015;105(7):1365–71. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref020] 20.Schroeder K, Noll JG, Henry KA, Suglia SF, Sarwer DB. Trauma-informed neighborhoods: Making the built environment trauma-informed. Preventive medicine reports. 2021;23:101501. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101501 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref021] 21.Armelius BÅ, Andreassen TH. Cognitive‐behavioral treatment for antisocial behavior in youth in residential treatment. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2007;3(1):1–57. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005650.pub2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref022] 22.Trupin EW, Stewart DG, Beach B, Boesky L. Effectiveness of a dialectical behaviour therapy program for incarcerated female juvenile offenders. Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 2002;7(3):121–7. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref023] 23.Vardanian MM, Scavenius C, Granski M, Chacko A. An international examination of the effectiveness of functional family therapy (FFT) in a Danish community sample. Journal of marital and family therapy. 2020;46(2):289–303. doi: 10.1111/jmft.12405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref024] 24.Datchi CC, Sexton TL. Can family therapy have an effect on adult criminal conduct? Initial evaluation of functional family therapy. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice. 2013;2(4):278. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref025] 25.Alegria M, Falgas‐Bague I, Fong Hf Engagement of ethnic minorities in mental health care. World Psychiatry. 2020;19(1):35. doi: 10.1002/wps.20695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref026] 26.Kerig PK, Ford JD, Alexander AR, Modrowski CA. Interventions for trauma-affected youth in the juvenile justice system: An overview of diagnostic, ethical, and clinical challenges and evidence-based treatments. Psychological Injury and Law. 2024:1–22. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref027] 27.Malvaso CG, Day A, Boyd CM. The Outcomes of Trauma-Informed Practice in Youth Justice: An Umbrella Review. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma. 2024. doi: 10.1007/s40653-024-00634-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref028] 28.Scott T, Brown SL. Risks, strengths, gender, and recidivism among justice-involved youth: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2018;86(11):931. doi: 10.1037/ccp0000343 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref029] 29.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of internal medicine. 2018;169(7):467–73. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref030] 30.Arksey H O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International journal of social research methodology. 2005;8(1):19–32. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref031] 31.Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation science. 2010;5:1–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref032] 32.Peters MD, Godfrey CM, Khalil H, McInerney P, Parker D, Soares CB. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Implementation. 2015;13(3):141–6. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref033] 33.Godfrey C. Exploring the world “out there”: the use of scoping reviews in education research. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2020;18(5):859–60. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00134 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref034] 34.Team T. EndNote. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate. 2021;12. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref035] 35.Aromataris E, Munn Z. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis JBI, 2020. [Available from: https://synthesismanual.jbi.global. https://doi.org/10.46658.JBIMES-20-01, 2020. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref036] 36.Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. Epub 2018/09/05. doi: 10.7326/M18-0850 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref037] 37.McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health education quarterly. 1988;15(4):351–77. doi: 10.1177/109019818801500401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref038] 38.Applegate BK, Santana S. Intervening with youthful substance abusers: A preliminary analysis of a juvenile drug court. Justice System Journal. 2000;21(3):281–300. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref039] 39.Rowe RC. Predictors of criminal offending: Evaluating measures of risk/needs, psychopathy, and disruptive behaviour disorders: Carleton University; 2002. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref040] 40.Yessine AK, Bonta J. The offending trajectories of youthful Aboriginal offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice. 2009;51(4):435–72. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref041] 41.Van der Stouwe T, Asscher JJ, Stams GJJ, Deković M, van der Laan PH. The effectiveness of multisystemic therapy (MST): A meta-analysis. Clinical psychology review. 2014;34(6):468–81. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2014.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0312684.ref042] 42.Fisher PA, Chamberlain P. Multidimensional treatment foster care: A program for intensive parenting, family support, and skill building. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. 2000;8(3):155–64. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Protective factors, risk factors, and intervention strategies in the prevention and reduction of crime among adolescents and young adults aged 12–24 years: A scoping review protocol

Rosanna Mary Rooney

Amber Hopkins

Jacob Peckover

Kael Coleman

Rebecca Sampson

Rosa Alati

Sharinaz Hassan

Christina M Pollard

Jaya A R Dantas

Roanna Lobo

Zakia Jeemi

Sharyn Burns

Robert Cunningham

Stephen Monterosso

Lynne Millar

Sender Dovchin

Rhonda Oliver

Ranila Bhoyroo

Getinet Ayano

Roles

Abstract

Background

Methods

Conclusion

Introduction

Aim and significance of study

Methods

Step 1: Identification of the research questions

Step 2: Identifying relevant studies

Eligibility criteria

Table 1. Population, Concept and Context (PCC) inclusion criteria.

Information sources and search strategy

Table 2.

Step 3: Study selection

Step 4: Charting the data

Data items

Step 5: Collating, summarising, and reporting the results

Fig 1. Flow diagram for the literature review, which illustrates the selection criteria and the flow of information through the different phases of the review, including database searches and the number of studies in each phase.

Critical appraisal of individual sources of evidence

Discussion

Limitations

Supporting information

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Johannes John-Langba

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

AKM Alamgir

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

AKM Alamgir

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 3

AKM Alamgir

Roles

Acceptance letter

AKM Alamgir

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases