Challenges in Evaluating a Community-Level Intervention to Address Root Causes of Youth Violence

• Published in: Prevention science Vol. 25; no. 5; pp. 774 - 785
• Main Authors: Mehari, Krista R., Smith, Phillip N., Morton, Benterah C., Billingsley, Joél L., Coleman, Jasmine N., Farrell, Albert D.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01-07-2024; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: African Americans; Change agents; Child and School Psychology; Clinical research; Clinical trials; Community; Community power; Concept formation; Decision making; Evaluation research; Health disparities; Health education; Health promotion; Health Psychology; Health status; Intervention; Measurement; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Partnerships; Prevention; Public buildings; Public Health; Sampling; Suicide; Violence; Youth; Ecological systems; Evaluation; Methodology; Youth violence; Suicide
• ISSN: 1389-4986; 1573-6695; 1573-6695
• DOI: 10.1007/s11121-024-01678-7

Violence disproportionately impacts Black American youth, representing a major health disparity. Addressing the possible root causes of structural inequities to reduce violence may increase the impact of prevention strategies. However, efforts to evaluate the impact of such interventions pose numerous methodological challenges, particularly around selecting an effective evaluation design to detect change at the community level, with adequate power and sampling, and appropriate constructs and measurement strategies. We propose a multiple baseline experimental design to evaluate the impact of a community-level youth violence and suicidality prevention strategy. A multiple baseline experimental design with multiple community units balances the need for scientific rigor with practical and values-based considerations. It includes randomization and plausible counterfactuals without requiring large samples or placing some communities in the position of not receiving the intervention. Considerations related to the conceptualization of the logic model, mechanisms of change, and health disparity outcomes informed the development of the measurement strategy. The strengths and weaknesses of a multiple baseline experimental design are discussed in comparison to versions of randomized clinical trials. Future health disparity intervention evaluation research will benefit from (1) building a shared sense of urgent public need to promote health; (2) respecting the validity of values- and partnership-based decision-making; and (3) promoting community-based and systems-level partnerships in scientific grant funding. The described study has been registered prospectively at clinicaltrials.gov, Protocol Record 21–454.