Drug Prevention in Junior High: A Multi-Site Longitudinal Test

Ellickson, Phyllis L.; Bell, Robert M.

doi:10.1126/science.2180065

Cited by 402 publications

(250 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(8 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

220

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Taken together with the finding that interventions that included a booster session were more effective than those without 30, 31, 32, 51, the data suggest that the repeated communication of health messages over an extended time‐period may have a more pronounced impact on the behaviour of young people.…”

Section: Implications and Other Evidencementioning

confidence: 63%

“…The number of sessions in the peer‐led programmes ranged from two to 36, but for most studies ( n = 11) the number ranged between five and 12 sessions (see Supporting information, Table S3). There was also variation between studies in the follow‐up period, which ranged from the end of intervention 30, 31, 52 to 7 years 50, although the maximum period of follow‐up for studies included in the quantitative synthesis was 1 year.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Data demonstrated that substance use was higher among participants with existing networks of substance‐using peers (b = 0.17, 0.08–0.26, P < 0.01), while substance use was reduced mainly for those students who nominated students who reported low levels of substance use. A second study 30 demonstrated that a greater proportion of baseline smokers in the peer‐led arm reported smoking in the past month, monthly and weekly smoking (63.2 versus 48.9%; 54 versus 43.3%; and 34.6 versus 26.4%, respectively). Among these individuals, pro‐smoking attitudes were more prevalent and a markedly higher proportion were around peers who smoked and had a best friend who reported smoking.…”

Section: Adverse Effects Of Peer‐led Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Where this was not reported, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated in Stata (version 13.1) using the raw data 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36. For continuous outcomes, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated and converted to a log OR 20, 37, 38, 39 using standard methods 40 (InlogOR = d(π/sqrt)3).…”

Section: Data Extraction and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the effect of excluding: studies for which assumptions were made for data analysis 30; studies which reported the outcome variable at lower frequency (i.e. in the past 12 months rather than weekly or monthly) 35; and the effect of including a study which compared peer‐led intervention to teacher‐led intervention 33.…”

Section: Tobacco Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Peer‐led interventions to prevent tobacco, alcohol and/or drug use among young people aged 11–21 years: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and AimsPeer‐led interventions may offer a beneficial approach in preventing substance use, but their impact has not yet been quantified. We conducted a systematic review to investigate and quantify the effect of peer‐led interventions that sought to prevent tobacco, alcohol and/or drug use among young people aged 11–21 years.MethodsMedline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to July 2015 without language restriction. We included randomized controlled trials only. Screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and data from eligible studies were pooled in a random effects meta‐analysis.ResultsWe identified 17 eligible studies, approximately half of which were school‐based studies targeting tobacco use among adolescents. Ten studies targeting tobacco use could be pooled, representing 13 706 young people in 220 schools. Meta‐analysis demonstrated that the odds of smoking were lower among those receiving the peer‐led intervention compared with control [odds ratio (OR) = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.62–0.99, P = 0.040]. There was evidence of heterogeneity (I 2 = 41%, χ2 15.17, P = 0.086). Pooling of six studies representing 1699 individuals in 66 schools demonstrated that peer‐led interventions were also associated with benefit in relation to alcohol use (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65–0.99, P = 0.036), while three studies (n = 976 students in 38 schools) suggested an association with lower odds of cannabis use (OR = 0.70, 0.50–0.97, P = 0.034). No studies were found that targeted other illicit drug use.ConclusionsPeer interventions may be effective in preventing tobacco, alcohol and possibly cannabis use among adolescents, although the evidence base is limited overall, and is characterized mainly by small studies of low quality.

show abstract

Section: Implications and Other Evidencementioning

confidence: 63%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Adverse Effects Of Peer‐led Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Data Extraction and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tobacco Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Peer‐led interventions to prevent tobacco, alcohol and/or drug use among young people aged 11–21 years: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Preventing Adolescent Health-Risk Behaviors by Strengthening Protection During Childhood

Hawkins¹,

Catalano²,

Kosterman³

et al. 1999

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med

841

568

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To examine the long-term effects of an intervention combining teacher training, parent education, and social competence training for children during the elementary grades on adolescent health-risk behaviors at age 18 years.Design: Nonrandomized controlled trial with follow-up 6 years after intervention.Setting: Public elementary schools serving high-crime areas in Seattle, Wash.Participants: Of the fifth-grade students enrolled in participating schools, 643 (76%) were given written parental consent for the longitudinal study and 598 (93%) were followed up and interviewed at age 18 years.Interventions: A full intervention provided in grades 1 through 6 of 5 days of in-service training for teachers each intervention year, developmentally appropriate parenting classes offered to parents when children were in grades 1 through 3 and 5 through 6, and developmentally adjusted social competence training for children in grades 1 and 6. A late intervention, provided in grades 5 and 6 only, paralleled the full intervention at these grades.Main Outcome Measures: Self-reported violent and nonviolent crime, substance use, sexual activity, pregnancy, bonding to school, school achievement, grade repetition and school dropout, suspension and/or expul-Editor's Note: I think the message here is, "Start early, include everyone possible, and [I'd add] don't ever stop."

show abstract

A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Middle and Junior High School D.A.R.E. and D.A.R.E. Plus Programs

Perry¹,

Komro²,

Veblen-Mortenson³

et al. 2003

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med

156

108

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Drug Prevention in Junior High: A Multi-Site Longitudinal Test

Cited by 402 publications

References 22 publications

Peer‐led interventions to prevent tobacco, alcohol and/or drug use among young people aged 11–21 years: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Peer‐led interventions to prevent tobacco, alcohol and/or drug use among young people aged 11–21 years: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Preventing Adolescent Health-Risk Behaviors by Strengthening Protection During Childhood

A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Middle and Junior High School D.A.R.E. and D.A.R.E. Plus Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About