AI Guide: Qualitative Analysis of Youth Climate Interventions

Deivanayagam et al., PLOS One (published August 13, 2026) set out a realist review protocol to identify how interventions involving adolescents can counter the fossil fuel industry and reduce health inequities, with a structural racism lens PLOS One.

• 1) Deivanayagam et al., PLOS One (published August 13, 2026) note an estimated 2.5 million deaths annually linked to outdoor air pollution from burning fossil fuels, underscoring the scale of harm.
• 2) Deivanayagam et al., PLOS One (published August 13, 2026) report that 67% of greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to fossil fuel combustion, situating interventions in a systems-level problem.
• 3) The review protocol began in October 2024 and aimed to complete evidence searches by April 2026, with results expected in July 2026 and dissemination through April 2027, showing a multi-year synthesis timetable.
• 4) The protocol uses realist review methods and the Context–Mechanism–Outcome framework to explain how adolescent involvement produces change, prioritising equity and participation.

The PLOS One protocol describes a realist review to explain how interventions involving adolescents counter fossil fuel industry practices and reduce health inequities.

Deivanayagam et al., PLOS One (published August 13, 2026) define the review scope to include programmes, campaigns, litigation, and advocacy involving adolescents aged 10–19, and they will prioritise studies describing participation at Hart’s rung five and above.

Deivanayagam et al., PLOS One (published August 13, 2026) plan five realist stages: scoping, building initial programme theories, systematic evidence search, selection and appraisal, and extraction and synthesis, following RAMESES standards.

Deivanayagam et al., PLOS One (published August 13, 2026) explicitly apply a structural racism lens and examine corporate political activity, quoting the industry practice definition as “practices to secure preferential treatment and/or prevent, shape, circumvent or undermine public policies in ways that further corporate interests.”

Deivanayagam et al., PLOS One (published August 13, 2026) include youth involvement in study design, naming a Youth Advisory Board of six adolescents aged 14–17 from England and an expert steering group to refine program theories.

Use realist, equity-centred synthesis to explain not just whether youth interventions work but how and for whom they work.

Deivanayagam et al., PLOS One (published August 13, 2026) recommend Context–Mechanism–Outcome configurations, which means qualitative analysts should extract context (setting, power relations), mechanisms (why participants act), and outcomes (policy, behaviour, equity) from each source.

Deivanayagam et al., PLOS One (published August 13, 2026) emphasise grey literature and movement ecosystems, so researchers must include campaign reports, legal filings, social media archives, and youth testimony when building programme theories.

Deivanayagam et al., PLOS One (published August 13, 2026) stress prioritising racially minoritised adolescents’ perspectives, which requires sampling, translation, and analytic practices that surface epistemic injustice and participation quality.

Deivanayagam et al., PLOS One (published August 13, 2026) provide a realist protocol that makes qualitative, equity-centred synthesis of adolescent interventions feasible and policy-relevant.

Researchers should combine the protocol’s CMO focus with AI-enabled workflows to speed extraction, maintain traceability, and foreground racially minoritised adolescents’ perspectives.

If you are planning a realist review or youth-centred synthesis, consider tools that support transcription, secure document ingestion, thematic and cross-segment analysis, and stakeholder workshops.

To try an AI platform designed for qualitative synthesis, Try Evidano for free.