Effects of a national indicated preventive intervention program

Abstract

For the most part, information concerning the effects of preventive interventions for youth at risk is more anecdotal than scientific. There have been few longitudinal studies with adequate control groups. Conceptual, methodological, and theoretical complexities limit our ability to assess program effectiveness adequately. As scientific knowledge in secondary prevention (selective, indicated prevention) is scarce, the Federal Office of Public Health in Switzerland established the national program, supra-f (Suchtpräventions-

Psychosocial Support Programme for Young Men at Risk: Who Participates, Who Drops Out?

“…These men had commonly failed to complete service and were less educated than the other men in the intervention group. This finding was in line with previous studies, according to which young people with the greatest problems and the fewest coping skills do not seek help (Carlton & Deane, 2000;Deane et al, 2001;Hüsler et al, 2005). Studies by Ciarrochi and colleagues have shown that adolescents who were low in emotional awareness, and who were poor at identifying, describing and managing their emotions, were the least likely to seek help from professional or non-professional sources and had the highest intention of refusing help from everyone.…”

“…Less attention has been paid to the success of adhering to interventions and programmes that provide support for young people. Hüsler et al (2005) found that the higher the risk related to psychosocial problems, the lower the success rate of integration following the intervention among young people. According to a meta-analysis (Kampman, 2004) patients most associated with non-adherence to psychiatric treatment are young males with a history of substance abuse, low social functioning or unemployment, or with limited insight into their illness.…”

“…These principles can be seen as key factors in effective preventive and promotive programmes for young people (Durlak & Wells, 1997;Catalano et al, 2002;Tylee & Walters, 2004;Hüsler et al, 2005).…”

Effects of a Psycho-Social Support Programme for Young Men — Randomised Trial of the Time Out! Getting Life Back on Track Programme

“…In existing studies and literature, these are often suggested to be the key factors of effective preventive and promotive programmes for adolescents (Durlak & Wells, 1997;Greenberg et al, 2001Greenberg et al, , 2003Catalano et al, 2002Catalano et al, , 2004Flay, 2002;Biddle et al, 2004;Rickwood et al, 2005). It is also important to consider the developmental stage and tasks of the adolescent (Hodgson et al, 1996;Hüsler et al, 2005;O'Connell et al, 2009). Dryfoos has (1990) suggested, for example, that enhancement of early education and prevention of school failure should be given high priority, not only by those who want to lower the drop-out rate, but also by those interested in preventing substance abuse and conduct disorders.…”

Social integration of adolescents at risk: Results from a cohort study

“…Participants were recruited from the supra-f study (Hüsler, Werlen & Blakeney, 2005), a national secondary prevention programme initiated by the Federal Office of Public Health in Switzerland. Youths in the age range 11-20 years taking part in the programme in 12 different centres in the French-and German-speaking parts of Switzerland are included in supra-f.…”