Youth Social Action Interventions in Young People Aged Between 8 and 16 Years: A Narrative Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research offers an exploration into the benefits and approaches of social action initiatives designed to engage children and youth. The author(s) raise important points about the lack of focus on youth within social action research and the opportunities to better understand the impacts of social action initiatives. The author(s) provide a clear overview of the methodology, including the strategies utilized and the inclusion and exclusion criteria, as well as a helpful overview of the participant demographics as presented in the reviewed articles.

 

To improve this manuscript I would recommend the author(s) consider the following revisions: 1) perhaps consider the key search terms and clarify the region of focus in the abstract; 2) define child & youth - the age range of 8-16 crosses most definitions; 3) provide more context for the youth’s lived experience and why diverse and interconnecting social positionalities and identities may influence the effectiveness of the initiatives reviewed; 4) offer a rationale for how you can assess/compare social action interventions across diverse regions; 5) the theoretical framework is missing – from which foundation are you building this research?; 6) a quarter of the studies reviewed are close to twenty years old – how does temporality influence the ability to analyze/compare initiatives?; 7) I would recommend refraining from using bullet points to articulate key findings; and 8) the manuscript offers an important summary of the papers reviewed, however there is opportunity to bring in more analysis – to go beyond a detailed summary – and to engage with more literature focused on youth engagement (ex. the Convention on the Rights of the Child) and social action.

 

Thank you for prioritizing youth as important social actors. I look forward to reading the next iteration and would be happy to offer additional comments if that would be helpful.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses an area of need in the literature on youth social action and comes to some logical conclusions about where more research is needed in the field, making accurate observations about areas where more rigorous methods are needed and close attention might be paid in order to get a better understanding of the research in the field. In addition, the authors have taken care with the manuscript, being explicit about their methods and providing a helpful organizer to present information about the 8 studies that meet their criteria. However, there are some big picture concerns that have not been addressed which would be important to consider before publication in order to do justice to the work presented here. For example, it is not clear why the age group chosen is specifically 8-16, given that many of the studies are from the US, and in the US, students are in high school typically until age 18. Since many youth programs recruit by age band, the authors unnecessarily eliminate a great deal of studies from their analysis which could have been included, making their findings much more robust (e.g., if their selection criteria were 8-18 instead of 8-16). If there is a different reason for the age 16 cutoff, that would just need to be provided, but none were provided. Similarly, other important terms remain unexplained or defined, so that the utility of the review is diminished since the type of work typically done in relation to these interventions often depends so greatly on how particular constructs are conceptualized and defined by the partcipants. Third, where most studies are reportedly informed by a theoretical or conceptual framework, no information about such frameworks is provided and this would also be a very important area to include in the analysis, especially when the numbers are so small. Given the significant drop-off between the initial number of studies (179) and the final number that qualified (8), the review may have greater relevance as an analysis of method for examining the literature in this field rather than in assuming that it can provide any kind of definitive information about youth social action.  As noted in the limitations, a lot of the work in this field happens in contexts that would not be captured in a review like this, and if they did try to capture them in a systematic review, many things would not be accessible to researchers unless they were more integrated in  the communities participating in the studies as well as in the reviews. 

The manuscript addresses an area of need in the literature on youth social action and comes to some logical conclusions about where more research is needed in the field, making accurate observations about areas where more rigorous methods are needed and close attention might be paid in order to get a better understanding of the research in the field. In addition, the authors have taken care with the manuscript, being explicit about their methods and providing a helpful organizer to present information about the 8 studies that meet their criteria. However, there are some big picture concerns that have not been addressed which would be important to consider before publication in order to do justice to the work presented here. For example, it is not clear why the age group chosen is specifically 8-16, given that many of the studies are from the US, and in the US, students are in high school typically until age 18. Since many youth programs recruit by age band, the authors unnecessarily eliminate a great deal of studies from their analysis which could have been included, making their findings much more robust (e.g., if their selection criteria were 8-18 instead of 8-16). If there is a different reason for the age 16 cutoff, that would just need to be provided, but none were provided. Similarly, other important terms remain unexplained or defined, so that the utility of the review is diminished since the type of work typically done in relation to these interventions often depends so greatly on how particular constructs are conceptualized and defined by the partcipants. Third, where most studies are reportedly informed by a theoretical or conceptual framework, no information about such frameworks is provided and this would also be a very important area to include in the analysis, especially when the numbers are so small. Given the significant drop-off between the initial number of studies (179) and the final number that qualified (8), the review may have greater relevance as an analysis of method for examining the literature in this field rather than in assuming that it can provide any kind of definitive information about youth social action.  As noted in the limitations, a lot of the work in this field happens in contexts that would not be captured in a review like this, and if they did try to capture them in a systematic review, many things would not be accessible to researchers unless they were more integrated in  the communities participating in the studies as well as in the reviews. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your response and enhancement of your manuscript.