Testing an evidence-based drug abuse and violence preventive approach adapted for youth in juvenile justice diversionary settings

Abstract

Background Universal school-based prevention programs for alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use are typically designed for all students within a particular school setting. However, it is unclear whether such broad-based programs are effective for youth at risk for substance use and violence in juvenile justice settings. Method The present study tested the feasibility, appropriateness, and efficacy of a preventive intervention to reduce risk factors for substance use and delinquency among youth in juvenile justice diversionary settings by promoting positive youth development and building personal strengths and prosocial relationships. Participants in the study (N = 288) were predominantly male (69%) and in the 9th grade (14 years old) or higher (91%), received the preventive intervention, and completed confidential questionnaires at the pre-test and post-test. Results The majority of youth who participated in the intervention rated the program topics (77.9%) and activities (72%) as appropriate for their age, would recommend it to their peers (73.6%), and would use the skills learned in the future (85.4%). Comparison of post-test adjusted means revealed that the prevention program had a significant positive impact on key knowledge, attitudes, and skills including goal-setting, stress-management, and communication skills. Conclusions The findings indicate that an evidence-based prevention approach adapted for youth diversionary settings can be effectively implemented and well-received by participating youth, and can produce positive changes in psychosocial skills and protective factors known to prevent multiple risk behaviors among youth. Future efforts to implement substance use prevention in community juvenile justice settings may benefit from highlighting a positive youth development, skills-based approach.

Can a registered trial be reported as a one-group, pretest-posttest study with no explanation? A critique of Williams et al. (2021)

“…BMC requires registration of all trials and that registration number and date be included as the last line of the manuscript abstract (BMC, 2021 ). This information does not appear in Williams et al ( 2021 ).…”

“…Second, the specific knowledge, attitudes and skills outcomes reported in Williams et al ( 2021 ) are not those described in the registration. The registered primary outcomes were Substance Use Behavior (frequency of use of 13 drugs), Intentions, Attitudes and Perceived Norms, and the secondary outcomes Aggressive, Violent and Delinquent Behavior (frequency of these behaviors).…”

“…Williams et al ( 2021 ) assessed the effects of a revised version of the Life Skills Training (LST) program in a juvenile justice diversionary setting. They concluded: “The results indicate that the intervention was effective for a variety of key outcomes” and that the program “can help overcome some of the shortcomings of current youth court programming in a way that is feasible and effective” (Williams et al, 2021 , page 9).…”

“…There are a number of reasons why the interpretation of the results presented by Williams et al ( 2021 ) in terms of program effectiveness, and their possible impact on youth in the juvenile justice system, are invalid. First, Williams et al ( 2021 ) state “the study design did not include a control or comparison group” (page 10), yet it began as a randomized trial with a control group, as evident from a protocol registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Williams, 2016 ). The registry shows the control group was removed from the protocol on January 3, 2019, five months after the study ended.…”

“…School performance was also mentioned as an outcome in the “Detailed Description” section of the ClinicalTrials.gov registration. The registered follow-ups were pretest, posttest and 6-month; there is no mention of the latter in Williams et al ( 2021 ). Trial registration is intended to limit selective outcome reporting in publications; this cannot be ruled out in the case of Williams et al ( 2021 ).…”