PROTOCOL: Cognitive and behavioral radicalization: A systematic review of the putative risk and protective factors.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
This systematic review seeks to collate and synthesize putative risk and protective factors for the different outcomes of radicalization.Methodology
Drawing on an established theoretical framework, we will categorize putative risk and protective factors as they relate to the domains of radical attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. We will utilize meta-analytic techniques to develop a rank-order of factors according to effect size. Meta-regression and sub-group analyses will be used to assess sources of heterogeneity.Implications
The results of the review are intended to inform evidence-based policy in the areas of both assessment and intervention.
SUBMITTER: Wolfowicz M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8356320 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
PROTOCOL: Cognitive and behavioral radicalization: A systematic review of the putative risk and protective factors.
Wolfowicz Michael M Litmanovitz Yael Y Weisburd David D Hasisi Badi B
Campbell systematic reviews 20200909 3
<h4>Objectives</h4>This systematic review seeks to collate and synthesize putative risk and protective factors for the different outcomes of radicalization.<h4>Methodology</h4>Drawing on an established theoretical framework, we will categorize putative risk and protective factors as they relate to the domains of radical attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. We will utilize meta-analytic techniques to develop a rank-order of factors according to effect size. Meta-regression and sub-group analyses ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundTwo of the most central questions in radicalization research are, (1) why do some individuals radicalize when most of those from the same groups or exposed to similar conditions do not? and (2) why do radicalized individuals turn to radical violence while the majority remain inert? It has been suggested that the answer to both questions lie in the cumulative and interactive effects of a range of risk factors. While risk assessment and counter-radicalization take a risk-protective factor approach, there is widespread debate as to what these factors are and which are most important.ObjectivesThis review has two primary objectives.1) To identify what the putative risk and protective factors for different radicalization outcomes are, without any predeterminations.2) To synthesize the evidence and identify the relative magnitude of the effects of different factors.The review's secondary objectives are to:1) Identify consistencies in the estimates of factors across different radicalization outcomes.2) Identify whether any significant heterogeneity exists within factors between (a) geographic regions, and (b) strains of radicalizing ideologies.Search methodsOver 20 databases were searched for both published and gray literature. In order to provide a more comprehensive review, supplementary searches were conducted in two German and one Dutch database. Reference harvesting was conducted from previous reviews and contact was made with leading researchers to identify and acquire missing or unpublished studies.Selection criteriaThe review included observational studies assessing the outcomes of radical attitudes, intentions, and/or radical behaviors in OECD countries and which provided sufficient data to calculate effect sizes for individual-level risk and protective factors.Data collection and analysisOne-hundred and twenty-seven studies, containing 206 samples met the inclusion criteria and provided 1302 effect sizes pertaining to over 100 different factors. Random effects meta-analyses were carried out for each factor, and meta-regression and moderator analysis were used to explore differences across studies.ResultsStudies were primarily cross-sectional, with samples representing 20 countries OECD countries. Most studies examined no specific radicalizing ideology, while others focussed on specific ideologies (e.g., Islamist, right-wing, and left-wing ideologies). The studies generally demonstrated low risk of bias and utilized validated or widely acceptable measures for both indicators and outcomes. With some exceptions, sociodemographic factors tend to have the smallest estimates, with larger estimates for experiential and attitudinal factors, followed by traditional criminogenic and psychological factors.Authors' conclusionsWhile sociodemographic factors are the most commonly examined factors (selective availability), they also tend to have the smallest estimates. So too, attitudinal and even experiential factors, do not have effect sizes of the magnitude that could lead to significant reductions in risk through targeting by interventions. Conversely, traditional criminogenic factors, as well as psychological factors tend to display the largest estimates. These findings suggest the need to broaden the scope of factors considered in both risk assessment and intervention, and this review provides much needed evidence for guiding the selection of factors.
| S-EPMC10121227 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFamily-related risk and protective factors are crucial for different antisocial behaviors, but their role in radicalization requires synthesis. Radicalization is likely to have a negative impact on families, and well-designed and implemented family-focused intervention programs have the potential to decrease radicalization.ObjectivesResearch questions were: (1) What are the family-related risk and protective factors for radicalization? (2) What is the impact of radicalization on families? (3) Are family-based interventions against radicalization effective?Search methodsSearches included 25 databases and hand searches of gray literature from April to July 2021. Leading researchers in the field were asked to provide published and unpublished studies on the topic. Reference lists of the included studies and previously published systematic reviews on risk and protective factors for radicalization were scanned.Selection criteriaPublished and unpublished quantitative studies on family-related risk and protective factors for radicalization, the impact of radicalization on families, and family-focused interventions were eligible with no restrictions regarding the study year, location, or any demographic characteristic. Studies were included if they measured the relation between a family-related factor and radicalization or if they included a family-focused intervention against radicalization. For family-related risk and protective factors, radicalized individuals needed to be compared to general population. Studies were included if they defined radicalization as support or commission of violence to defend a cause, including support for radical groups.Data collection and analysisThe systematic search identified 86,591 studies. After screening, 33 studies focused on family-related risk and protective factors were included, with 89 primary effect sizes and 48 variables grouped in 14 factors. For the factors that included two or more studies, meta-analyses with random effects were conducted. When possible, moderator analyses were performed together with sensitivity and publication bias analyses. No studies on the impact of radicalization on families or family-focused interventions were included.ResultsThe current systematic review based on studies with 148,081 adults and adolescents from diverse geographic locations showed that parental ethnic socialization (z = 0.27), having extremist family members (z = 0.26), and family conflict (z = 0.11) were related to more radicalization, whereas high family socioeconomic status (z = -0.03), bigger family size (z = -0.05), and high family commitment (z = -0.06) were related to less radicalization. Separate analyses described family-factors for behavioral versus cognitive radicalization, and different radical ideologies including Islamist, right-wing and left-wing. It was not possible to distinguish risk and protective factors from correlates and the level of overall bias was mostly high. No results regarding the impact of radicalization on families or family-focused interventions were included.Authors' conclusionsAlthough causal relations between family-related risk and protective factors could not be established, it is reasonable to suggest that policies and practice should aim at decreasing family-related risks and increasing protective factors for radicalization. Tailored interventions including these factors should be urgently designed, implemented and evaluated. Studies focused on the impact of radicalization on families and family-focused interventions are urgently needed together with longitudinal studies on family-related risk and protective factors.
| S-EPMC9300959 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The main objective of this project is to gather, critically appraise, and synthesize evidence about the appropriateness and utility of tools used to assess the risk of violent radicalization.
| S-EPMC9538709 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMental and substance use disorders are among the leading causes of burden of disease worldwide, with risk of onset peaking between the ages of 13 and 24 years. Comorbidity is also common among young people and complicates research, diagnosis and assessment, and clinical decision making. There is increasing support for empirically derived models of psychopathology that overcome issues of comorbidity and provide a transdiagnostic framework for investigating the specificity and generality of risk and protective factors for psychopathology.ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to identify transdiagnostic risk and protective factors for psychopathology in young people by synthesizing and evaluating findings from research investigating empirically based models of psychopathology.MethodsSearches will be conducted in Medline, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases. Reference lists of selected articles will also be hand searched for other relevant publications. All studies will be screened against eligibility criteria designed to identify studies that examined empirical models of psychopathology in relation to risk and/or protective factors in young people with a mean age between 10 and 24 years. Study quality will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists for Cohort Studies and Analytical Cross-Sectional Studies. Findings will be summarized in a narrative synthesis, and a meta-analysis will be conducted if sufficient data are available.ResultsThis review is ongoing. At the time of submission, full-text screening was completed, and hand searching of selected articles was underway. Results are expected to be completed by the end of 2020.ConclusionsThis protocol is for a systematic review of evidence for transdiagnostic risk and protective factors associated with empirically based models of psychopathology in young people. To our knowledge, the critical synthesis of this evidence will be the first to date and will provide a better understanding of the factors that contribute to the onset and maintenance of psychopathology in young people. Insights drawn from the review will provide critical new knowledge to improve the targeting of interventions to prevent or reduce mental health problems.Trial registrationThis systematic review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020161368) and is available via Open Science Framework.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/19779.
| S-EPMC7471887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPost-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is associated with an increased risk of dementia. Individual epidemiological studies have controlled for several confounders of the relationship between PTSD and increased dementia risk, yet particular risk factors underlying this relationship have not been determined. This systematic review protocol aims to identify risk and protective factors of dementia among adults with PTSD.Methods and analysisWe will conduct an electronic search of the databases: PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, The Cochrane Library, Scopus and ProQuest Dissertation and Theses Global. After screening the studies, quantitative synthesis will be performed, if possible. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be performed. We will include randomised controlled trials and other types of research evidence including longitudinal cohort studies. Strength of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations method. Examples of variables that will be extracted are: year of PTSD diagnosis, comorbid conditions, health behaviours, pharmacological treatments and year of mild cognitive impairment or dementia diagnosis. We developed this systematic review protocol according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 statement.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed study will not collect individual-level data and, therefore, does not require ethical approval. Results of this study will provide current evidence on risk and protective factors of dementia in adults with PTSD. Findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Prospero registration numberCRD42019128553.
| S-EPMC7282332 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile one in three women around the world are estimated to have experienced intimate partner or sexual violence, these rates are often exacerbated during conflict and humanitarian crisis. This systematic review seeks to provide an overview of existing research on risk and protective factors associated with gender-based violence (GBV) in conflict and humanitarian settings.MethodsStudies will be searched from the following databases: PubMed (Medline); PsycINFO; Scopus; Global Health; and Cochrane Center trials registrar. In addition, targeted searches of the internet repositories for GBV will be conducted. We will include studies that are published between January 1995 and December 2020 and document risk or protective factors for gender-based violence against women and girls in conflict or humanitarian settings. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data for the review, with a third reviewer arbitrating disputes and ensuring quality. A quality assessment of the included studies will be undertaken using a modified GRADE system. Narrative synthesis will be utilized to analyze the data.DiscussionThe results of this study will inform the design and delivery of GBV prevention programs in conflict and humanitarian settings as well as contribute to the attainment of Sustainable Development Goal 5. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be utilized at the World Health Organization to inform efforts to prevent GBV in conflict and humanitarian settings.Systematic review registrationThe protocol has been registered with PROSEPERO ( CRD42020198695 ).
| S-EPMC8403411 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe most frequent risks of noncommunicable diseases include tobacco use, harmful use of alcohol, unhealthy diet, and physical inactivity. In low-income countries, it is not fully understood how serious these risk factors are. To address the issue at the risk factor level, it is essential to produce evidence that aids in the development of policies and initiatives in the area. This review is aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of noncommunicable disease behavioral risk factors in Sub-Saharan Africa.MethodsStudies published between 2016 and 2023 will be located using searches of the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, and African Index Medicus as well as Google and Google Scholar. Two authors will independently review the records, and information will be taken from studies that present statistics on the prevalence of tobacco use, alcohol use, unhealthy diet, and insufficient physical activity among people older than 18 years. Using the I2 and Q statistics, heterogeneity between studies will be evaluated, and it will be investigated using subgroup analyses and meta-regressions. Random effects meta-analysis model will be used and subgroup analysis will be performed by country, study design, and study year.DiscussionThe burden of noncommunicable disease risk factors varies throughout the Sub-Saharan Africa. The review will be essential for both research and policy. The finding may even help to identify settings or subgroups of the population where noncommunicable diseases is of higher concern and help to set prevention priorities, to optimize resource allocation, and guide future research to fill knowledge gaps. The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023431348).
| S-EPMC11466397 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Intimate partner violence (IPV) is identifiable as a major public health concern worldwide. The international literature highlights how this phenomenon is complex and transversal to all age groups. While the global population is becoming older, the scientific research about risk and protective factors related to IPV in the golden age is diverse, and the different findings of the various studies have not been systematized so far. Thus, in this systematic review, we aim to analyze the scientific studies that investigate the risk and the protective factors of violent dynamics between elderly couples. From the perspective of the theoretical frameworks and the methodological approaches used, we present the main conceptual themes that emerge. Following the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, we review the articles that report the analyses of protective and risk factors of IPV perpetration. Our results indicate social support, help-seeking behavior, and the availability of community-based services addressing the issues of abuse as the main protective factors. The risk factors are related to economic conditions, belonging to an ethnic minority, cognitive or physical impairment, other conditions associated with cultural background and relational dynamics, such as intrapartner dependence and intergenerational transmission of violence and trauma, and caregiving stress. We discuss possible future directions of research to improve the understanding of IPV in the elderly population and the implications for the development of intervention policies at preventive and supportive levels.
| S-EPMC6131561 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesIdentifying risk factors of depression can provide a better understanding of the disorder in older people. However, to minimize bias due to the influence of confounders and to detect reverse influence, a focus on longitudinal studies using multivariate analysis is required.DesignA systematic literature search was conducted by searching the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane, PsycINFO and Web of Science for all relevant articles published from January 2000 to the end of March 2020. The following inclusion criteria were used: prospective design, nationally or regionally representative sample, published in English or German, analyzed risk factors for depression of individuals 65+ identified by multivariate analysis, and provided validity of diagnostic instrument. All results of multivariate analysis were reported and summarized.ResultsThirty articles were identified. Heterogeneous results were found for education, female gender, self-rated health, cognitive impairment and older age, although significant in several studies. Findings hinted at a protective quality of physical activity. In terms of physical health, chronic disease and difficulty initiating sleep homogeneously increased risk of depression. Mobility impairment resulted as a risk factor in three studies. IADL impairment and vision impairment were mostly identified as significant risk factors. Alcohol consumption and smoking behavior yielded heterogenous results. Psychosocial factors were assessed similarly in multiple studies and yielded heterogenous results.LimitationsResearch was limited to articles published in English or German. Length of follow up was not considered for the presentation of results. Adjustments for and inclusion of different variables in the studies may distort results.ConclusionOur findings demonstrate the necessity of refined, more comparable assessment tools for evaluating potential risk factors.
| S-EPMC8118343 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSelf-harm and suicide are major public health concerns among children and adolescents. Many risk and protective factors for suicide and self-harm have been identified and reported in the literature. However, the capacity of these identified risk and protective factors to guide assessment and management is limited due to their great number. This protocol describes an ongoing systematic review and meta-analysis which aims to examine longitudinal studies of risk factors for self-harm and suicide in children and adolescents, to provide a comparison of the strengths of association of the various risk factors for self-harm and suicide and to shed light on those that require further investigation.Methods and analysisWe perform a systematic search of the literature using the databases EMBASE, PsycINFO, Medline, CINAHL and HMIC from inception up to 28 October 2020, and the search will be updated before the systematic review publication. Additionally, we will contact experts in the field, including principal investigators whose peer-reviewed publications are included in our systematic review as well as investigators from our extensive research network, and we will search the reference lists of relevant reviews to retrieve any articles that were not identified in our search. We will extract relevant data and present a narrative synthesis and combine the results in meta-analyses where there are sufficient data. We will assess the risk of bias for each study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and present a summary of the quantity and the quality of the evidence for each risk or protective factor.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be sought as this is a systematic review of the literature. Results will be published in mental health journals and presented at conferences focused on suicide prevention.Prospero registration numberCRD42021228212.
| S-EPMC9703327 | biostudies-literature