The Prevalence of Effective Substance Use Prevention Curricula in the Nation’s High Schools

Ringwalt, Christopher L.; Hanley, Sean; Vincus, Amy A.; Ennett, Susan T.; Rohrbach, Louise Ann; Bowling, J. Michael

doi:10.1007/s10935-008-0158-4

Cited by 92 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

102

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Some of these factors have to do with organizational structure and management style, including size (DiFranceisco et al 1999;Greenhalgh et al 2004;McCormack et al 1995;Ringwalt et al 2002), maturity (Greenhalgh et al 2004), specialization (Greenhalgh et al 2004), and organizational structure such as decentralized decision-making (Cooke 2000;Greenhalgh et al 2004;Kallestad and Olweus 2003;Lempa et al in press). Others have to do with leadership, including having strong leadership (Greenhalgh et al 2004;Lempa et al in press) and clearly articulated program goals/vision (Greenhalgh et al 2004;MacDonald and Green 2001).…”

Section: Organizational General Capacitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpacking Prevention Capacity: An Intersection of Research‐to‐practice Models and Community‐centered Models

Flaspohler

Duffy

Wandersman

et al. 2008

American J of Comm Psychol

244

232

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Capacity is a complex construct that lacks definitional clarity. Little has been done to define capacity, explicate components of capacity, or explore the development of capacity in prevention. This article represents an attempt to operationalize capacity and distinguish among types and levels of capacity as they relate to dissemination and implementation through the use of a taxonomy of capacity. The development of the taxonomy was informed by the capacity literature from two divergent models in the field: research-to-practice (RTP) models and community-centered (CC) models. While these models differ in perspective and focus, both emphasize the importance of capacity to the dissemination and sustainability of prevention innovations. Based on the review of the literature, the taxonomy differentiates the concepts of capacity among two dimensions: level (individual, organizational, and community levels) and type (general capacity and innovation-specific capacity). The proposed taxonomy can aid in understanding the concept of capacity and developing methods to support the implementation and sustainability of prevention efforts in novel settings.

show abstract

Section: Organizational General Capacitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unpacking Prevention Capacity: An Intersection of Research‐to‐practice Models and Community‐centered Models

Flaspohler

Duffy

Wandersman

et al. 2008

American J of Comm Psychol

244

232

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although bodies of research on effective interventions have grown, we have not seen a corresponding increase in the use of effective programs. Examination of public health and prevention practice in the field suggests that those innovations that have been found most effective in prevention research are not necessarily those most commonly used in practice (e.g., Ringwalt et al 2002;Wandersman and Florin 2003). Findings such as these illustrate the importance of seeking ways to decrease the gap between science and practice.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging the Gap Between Prevention Research and Practice: The Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation

Wandersman

Duffy

Flaspohler

et al. 2008

American J of Comm Psychol

974

919

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

If we keep on doing what we have been doing, we are going to keep on getting what we have been getting. Concerns about the gap between science and practice are longstanding. There is a need for new approaches to supplement the existing approaches of research to practice models and the evolving community-centered models for bridging this gap. In this article, we present the Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation (ISF) that uses aspects of research to practice models and of community-centered models. The framework presents three systems: the Prevention Synthesis and Translation System (which distills information about innovations and translates it into user-friendly formats); the Prevention Support System (which provides training, technical assistance or other support to users in the field); and the Prevention Delivery System (which implements innovations in the world of practice). The framework is intended to be used by different types of stakeholders (e.g., funders, practitioners, researchers) who can use it to see prevention not only through the lens of their own needs and perspectives, but also as a way to better understand the needs of other stakeholders and systems. It provides a heuristic for understanding the needs, barriers, and resources of the different systems, as well as a structure for summarizing existing research and for illuminating priority areas for new research and action.

show abstract

“…Examples of these include the Life Skills Program (Botvin, Baker, Dusenbery, Botvin, & Diaz, 1995) and the Guiding Good Choices Program (Spoth, Redmond, Trudeau, & Shin, 2002). Yet, despite promising efficacy findings, prevention scientists are currently challenged to retain treatment effectiveness of substance use prevention programs in the context of disseminating their programs on a larger-scale (Ringwalt et al, 2002;Tobler et al, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Historical Change in the Link between Adolescent Deviance Proneness and Marijuana Use, 1979–2004

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined historical change in the association between adolescent deviance proneness and marijuana use using 26 years (from 1979 through 2004) of national 12 th grade data from the Monitoring the Future (MTF) study. "Deviance proneness" was measured using a latent factor model of behavioral and personality characteristics that underlie both substance use and antisocial disorders. Marijuana use outcomes were measured in terms of youths' annual frequency of use, and youths' degree of involvement with marijuana. Separate within-gender structural equation models were used to determine whether links between deviance proneness and marijuana use were consistently significant and invariant in magnitude across 13 2-year historical cohorts. Overall results affirmed the established association between adolescent deviance proneness and both the frequency of marijuana use as well as regular use. Among male youth, the size of the association between deviance proneness and marijuana use was significantly smaller at the cohort of lowest population prevalence (1991/92) compared to cohorts marking peaks in marijuana use prevalence, thus suggesting a "softening" historical trend. By contrast, the prediction of female marijuana use from deviance proneness was not consistently related to historical shifts in population prevalence of marijuana use. Study findings point to the utility of risk-focused prevention programming that targets early precursors of both antisocial and substance use disorders.

show abstract

The Prevalence of Effective Substance Use Prevention Curricula in the Nation’s High Schools

Cited by 92 publications

References 11 publications

Unpacking Prevention Capacity: An Intersection of Research‐to‐practice Models and Community‐centered Models

Unpacking Prevention Capacity: An Intersection of Research‐to‐practice Models and Community‐centered Models

Bridging the Gap Between Prevention Research and Practice: The Interactive Systems Framework for Dissemination and Implementation

Historical Change in the Link between Adolescent Deviance Proneness and Marijuana Use, 1979–2004

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About