The systematic review was undertaken between
March and July 2011, and involved several
stages including literature searching, relevance
screening, critical appraisal, data extraction and
narrative reporting of findings.
An electronic search of 11 databases
(Table 1) was undertaken using the search strategy
outlined in Figure 1. The full search was
undertaken between 4th and 8th April 2011 and
generated 567 hits, including 8 duplicates.
The abstracts of 559 hits generated in the
initial search were screened using defined inclusion
and exclusion criteria (Figure 2). It is difficult
to categorize a discrete youth justice
population, partly because of international differences
in offender management. However, the
study sought to capture the range of youth
music provision by including interventions with
young people aged between 11 and 25. The
study also included a range of settings and not
just custodial settings: this is because in many
countries significant efforts are made to keep
young people out of custody. The youth justice
system was defined to include community-based
interventions with identified groups who are
known to youth justice professionals and clearly
identified as ‘at risk’ of offending. Hence interventions
within mainstream populations were
excluded, as were studies of disadvantaged and
clinical populations who share some
Page 2 of 14 N. Daykin et al.
Downloaded from http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on August 29, 2015