. 2018 Oct 5;2018(10):CD009927. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009927.pub2

for the main comparison.

Summary of findings table for the effectiveness of targeted individual‐level multiple risk behaviour interventions compared to usual practice for outcomes up to 12 months post intervention
Patient or population: children and young people aged 0 to 18 years Settings: varied settings (home, kindergarten, primary school, secondary school, clinic, community) Intervention: multiple risk behaviour interventions Comparison: no intervention/usual practice
Outcomes	Risk with usual practice	Risk with intervention (95% CI)	Relative effect  (95% CI)	No. of participants  (studies)	Quality of the evidence  (GRADE)	Comments
Tobacco use	156 per 1000	191 per 1000 (122 to 288)	OR 1.28  (0.75 to 2.19)	521  (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊝  Moderate^a
Alcohol use	613 per 1000	618 per 1000 (559 to 675)	OR 1.02  (0.80 to 1.31)	1204  (4 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊝  Moderate^a
Cannabis use	110 per 1000	120 per 1000 (79 to 179)	OR 1.10  (0.69 to 1.76)	126  (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊝  Moderate^a
Illicit drug use	32 per 1000	30 per 1000 (23 to 400)	OR 0.94  (0.71 to 1.25)	638  (3 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊝  Moderate^a
Antisocial behaviour	145 per 1000	170 per 1000 (135 to 213)	OR 1.21  (0.92 to 1.60)	764  (4 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊝  Moderate^a
Vehicle‐related risk behaviour	81 per 1000	49 per 1000 (12 to 179)	OR 0.59 (0.14 to 2.48)	94  (2 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝  Very low^b
Sexual risk behaviour	610 per 1000	533 per 1000 (434 to 628)	OR 0.73  (0.49 to 1.08)	494  (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊕⊝  Moderate^a
Physical activity	134 per 1000	N/A	No studies in meta‐analysis
^aDowngraded owing to high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and/or unclear risk of bias across additional domains. ^bDowngraded owing to high risk of bias on the basis of blinding and/or high or unclear risk of bias across additional domains, as well as imprecision related to width of the 95% confidence interval of the summary estimate and inconsistency between effect estimates (I² = 81%).  Note that variation was evident in measures of risk with usual practice. Baseline risk measures were calculated at follow‐up. When no data were reported for any study in that meta‐analysis, baseline measures were used. CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence  High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.  Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.  Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.  Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate.