***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: We included 13 studies evaluating 19 interventions from high-income countries (HICs). At update stage (from our 2015 search), one previously included study was removed and three new studies added (since our 2012 search). We found no sufficiently robust evaluations conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Study quality overall was low and measurements used by studies variable. Participants were classified as drop-in and shelter-based. No studies measured the primary outcome of reintegration and none reported on adverse effects.We found no consistent results on a range of relevant outcomes within domains of psychosocial health, substance misuse and sexually risky behaviours . Interventions evaluated consisted of time-limited therapeutically based programmes that proved no more effective than standard shelter or drop-in services and other control interventions used for most outcomes in most studies. Favourable changes from baseline were reported for outcomes for most participants following therapy interventions and standard services. We noted considerable heterogeneity between studies and inconsistent reporting of equity data. No studies measured the primary outcome of reintegration or reported on adverse effects. Analysis revealed no consistently significant benefit for focused therapeutic interventions compared with standard services such as drop-in centres, case management and other comparable interventions for street-connected children and young people. Commonly available services, however, were not rigorously evaluated. Robust evaluation of interventions, including comparison with no intervention, would establish a more reliable evidence base to inform service implementation. More robust research is needed in LMICs to examine interventions for street-connected children and young people with different backgrounds and service needs.
Output:

Thirteen studies have rigorously evaluated 19 interventions such as services to support street-connected children and youth - all in high-income countries. Most have compared therapy-based services versus usual shelter and drop-in services, or versus other therapeutic/health interventions. We found mixed results among these studies but overall findings suggesting that participants receiving therapy and those provided usual services benefited to a similar level. Future research should consider the benefits of usual drop-in and shelter services, most particularly in low- and middle-income countries, and should focus on street-connected children and young people. None of the studies included participants comparable with street children in low-income countries, who may be on the street primarily to earn a living, or as a result of war, migration or urbanisation. Overall we assessed the quality of the evidence included in this review as low/moderate.