Apunyo Robert, White Howard, Otike Caroline, Katairo Thomas, Puerto Susana, Gardiner Drew, Kinengyere Alison Annet, Eyers John, Saran Ashrita, Obuku Ekwaro A
Africa Centre for Systematic Reviews and Knowledge Translation, Makerere University College of Health Sciences Makerere University College of Health Sciences Kampala Uganda.
Campbell Collaboration New Delhi India.
Campbell Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 15;18(1):e1216. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1216. eCollection 2022 Mar.
Globally, 13% of the youth are not in education, employment or training (NEET). Moreover, this persistent problem has been exacerbated by the shock of Covid-19 pandemic. More youth from disadvantaged backgrounds are likely unemployed than those from better off backgrounds. Thus, the need for increased use of evidence in the design and implementation of youth employment interventions to increase effectiveness and sustainability of interventions and outcomes. Evidence and gap maps (EGMs) can promote evidence-based decision making by guiding policy makers, development partners and researchers to areas with good bodies of evidence and those with little or no evidence. The scope of the Youth Employment EGM is global. The map covers all youth aged 15-35 years. The three broad intervention categories included in the EGM are: strengthening training and education systems, enhancing labour market and, transforming financial sector markets. There are five outcome categories: education and skills; entrepreneurship; employment; welfare and economic outcomes. The EGM contains impact evaluations of interventions implemented to increase youth employment and systematic reviews of such single studies, published or made available between 2000 and 2019.
The primary objective was to catalogue impact evaluations and systematic reviews on youth employment interventions to improve discoverability of evidence by decision makers, development patterners and researchers, so as to promote evidence-based decision making in programming and implementation of youth employment initiatives.
Twenty databases and websites were searched using a validated search strategy. Additional searches included searching within 21 systematic reviews, snowballing 20 most recent studies and citation tracking of 10 most recent studies included in the EGM.
The study selection criteria followed the PICOS approach of population, intervention, relevant comparison groups, outcomes and study design. Additional criterion is; study publication or availability period of between 2000 and 2021. Only impact evaluations and systematic reviews that included impact evaluations were selected.
A total of 14,511 studies were uploaded in EPPI Reviewer 4 software, upon which 399 were selected using the criteria provided above. Coding of data took place in EPPI Reviewer basing on predefined codes. The unit of analysis for the report is individual studies where every entry represents a combination of interventions and outcomes.
Overall, 399 studies (21 systematic reviews and 378 impact evaluations) are included in the EGM. Impact evaluations ( = 378) are much more than the systematic reviews ( = 21). Most impact evaluations are experimental studies (= 177), followed by non-experimental matching ( = 167) and other regression designs ( = 35). Experimental studies were mostly conducted in both Lower-income countries and Lower Middle Income countries while non-experimental study designs are the most common in both High Income and Upper Middle Income countries. Most evidence is from low quality impact evaluations (71.2%) while majority of systematic reviews (71.4% of 21) are of medium and high quality rating. The area saturated with most evidence is the intervention category of 'training', while the underrepresented are three main intervention sub-categories: information services; decent work policies and; entrepreneurship promotion and financing. Older youth, youth in fragility, conflict and violence contexts, or humanitarian settings, or ethnic minorities or those with criminal backgrounds are least studied.
The Youth Employment EGM identifies trends in evidence notably the following: Most evidence is from high-income countries, an indication of the relationship between a country's income status and research productivity.The most common study designs are experimental.Most of the evidence is of low quality. This finding serves to alert researchers, practitioners and policy makers that more rigorous work is needed to inform youth employment interventions. Blending of interventions is practiced. While this could be an indication that blended intervention could be offering better outcomes, this remains an area with a research gap.
在全球范围内，13%的青年未接受教育、未就业或未参加培训（即处于“尼特”状态）。此外，新冠疫情的冲击使这一长期存在的问题更加严重。与背景较好的青年相比，来自弱势背景的青年更有可能失业。因此，在设计和实施青年就业干预措施时，需要更多地运用证据，以提高干预措施及其成果的有效性和可持续性。证据与差距地图（EGM）可以通过引导政策制定者、发展伙伴和研究人员关注有充分证据的领域以及证据很少或没有证据的领域，来促进基于证据的决策。青年就业EGM的范围是全球性的。该地图涵盖了所有15至35岁的青年。EGM中包括的三大类干预措施是：加强培训和教育系统、改善劳动力市场以及转变金融部门市场。有五个成果类别：教育与技能；创业；就业；福利与经济成果。EGM包含了对为增加青年就业而实施的干预措施的影响评估，以及对2000年至2019年期间发表或可获取的此类单项研究的系统评价。
主要目标是对青年就业干预措施的影响评估和系统评价进行编目，以提高决策者、发展规划者和研究人员对证据的可发现性，从而促进青年就业倡议规划和实施中的基于证据的决策。
使用经过验证的搜索策略搜索了20个数据库和网站。额外的搜索包括在21项系统评价中进行搜索、对20项最新研究进行滚雪球式搜索以及对EGM中包含的10项最新研究进行引文跟踪。
研究选择标准遵循人群、干预措施、相关对照组、成果和研究设计的PICOS方法。附加标准是；研究发表或可获取的时间段为2000年至2021年。仅选择了影响评估和包括影响评估的系统评价。
总共14511项研究上传到EPPI Reviewer 4软件中，根据上述标准从中选择了399项。数据编码在EPPI Reviewer中根据预定义的代码进行。报告的分析单位是单个研究，每个条目代表干预措施和成果的组合。
总体而言，EGM中包括399项研究（21项系统评价和378项影响评估）。影响评估（=378）比系统评价（=21）多得多。大多数影响评估是实验性研究（=177），其次是非实验性匹配（=167）和其他回归设计（=35）。实验性研究大多在低收入国家和中低收入国家进行，而非实验性研究设计在高收入国家和中高收入国家最为常见。大多数证据来自低质量的影响评估（71.2%），而大多数系统评价（21项中的71.4%）的质量评级为中等和高等级。证据最丰富的领域是“培训”这一干预类别，而代表性不足的是三个主要干预子类别：信息服务；体面工作政策；创业促进与融资。对年龄较大的青年、处于脆弱、冲突和暴力环境或人道主义环境中的青年、少数民族或有犯罪背景的青年的研究最少。
青年就业EGM确定了证据方面的趋势，特别是以下几点：大多数证据来自高收入国家，这表明一个国家的收入状况与研究生产力之间的关系。最常见的研究设计是实验性的。大多数证据质量较低。这一发现提醒研究人员、从业者和政策制定者，需要开展更严谨的工作为青年就业干预措施提供信息。干预措施的融合正在实践中。虽然这可能表明融合干预可能会带来更好的结果，但这仍然是一个存在研究差距的领域。
