The CPSTF uses a rigorous replicable systematic review process to develop evidence-based recommendations and findings about the effectiveness and economics of public health programs and other services that can be carried out in communities, states, and health care settings to help save American lives and dollars, increase longevity, and improve quality of life. The findings can be used to improve health population-wide or in community settings, such as schools, worksites, community centers, faith-based organizations, health plans, public health clinics and departments, and large integrated health care systems.

Systematic reviews are conducted in accordance with the highest international standards, using a transparent methodology that accounts for the complexities of real-world public health interventions. Systematic review science teams, coordinated by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientists, evaluate the strengths and limitations of all relevant high-quality evidence. Teams include CPSTF members, official liaisons, subject matter experts from federal and nonfederal agencies, practitioners, policymakers, and representatives of other stakeholders such as businesses, voluntary health organizations, and professional organizations.⁷

CPSTF members represent a broad range of local, state, and national research, practice, and policy expertise in community preventive services, public health, health promotion, and disease prevention. They are supported by 32 Liaisons who represent the views, concerns, and needs of state and local public health departments, the U.S. Armed Forces, federal agencies, health care professionals, and other national organizations invested in America’s health.

The CPSTF recommends use of intervention approaches for which it finds strong or sufficient evidence of effectiveness. The CPSTF recommends against using programs, services, and policies for which it finds strong or sufficient evidence that they are ineffective or harmful. The CPSTF also identifies intervention approaches that lack sufficient evidence to recommend for or against. It is important to note that a finding of insufficient evidence does not mean an intervention does not work, instead it often indicates additional research is needed.

The CPSTF has issued findings for >250 intervention approaches in >21 different topic areas. These findings, and the systematic reviews of the evidence on which they are based, are compiled in The Community Guide (www.thecommunityguide.org).

The CPSTF recommends strategies and approaches for youth aged 12–24 years that aim to prevent or reduce IPV and SV and promote healthier relationships between peers and partners. Recommended interventions provided information about the warning signs for, or consequences of, IPV and SV combined with teaching healthy relationship skills, promoting social norms that protect against violence, or creating protective environments. Interventions were implemented in schools, at home, in communities, or in a combination of settings. They targeted groups at high risk for violence or the general population, both of which could include youth who had already experienced or perpetrated IPV or SV.

Most studies included in this systematic review were conducted in the United States and implemented in middle schools, high schools, or on college campuses. Studies consistently showed decreases in IPV and SV perpetration, although effects on victimization varied. Most studies also showed an increase in bystander action within the first 6 months after intervention. Bystander action was defined as any behavior that challenged violence-supportive norms by directly or indirectly reducing the risk of violence.

Additional information about the included studies and review findings can be found online: www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/violence-primary-prevention-interventions-reduce-perpetration-intimate-partner-violence-sexual-violence-among-youth.

Decision makers, practitioners, and scientists can use CPSTF recommendations and other available resources from The Community Guide to inform decisions, fund or implement programs or policies, and guide research activities. The following examples show some of the ways decision makers can use the IPV and SV recommendation to select interventions, identify additional areas of research, and justify funding requests.