© 2013 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Background: Helping young people to avoid starting smoking is a widely endorsed public health goal, and schools provide a route to communicate with nearly all young people. School-based interventions have been delivered for close to 40 years. Objectives: The primary aim of this review was to determine whether school smoking interventions prevent youth from starting smoking. Our secondary objective was to determine which interventions were most effective. This included evaluating the effects of theoretical approaches; additional booster sessions; programme deliverers; gender effects; and multifocal interventions versus those focused solely on smoking. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsyclNFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Health Star, and Dissertation Abstracts for terms relating to school-based smoking cessation programmes. In addition, we screened the bibliographies of articles and ran individual MEDLINE searches for 133 authors who had undertaken randomised controlled trials in this area. The most recent searches were conducted in October 2012. Selection criteria: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where students, classes, schools, or school districts were randomised to intervention arm(s) versus a control group, and followed for at least six months. Participants had to be youth (aged 5 to 18). Interventions could be any curricula used in a school setting to deter tobacco use, and outcome measures could be never smoking, frequency of smoking, number of cigarettes smoked, or smoking indices. Data collection and analysis: Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Based on the type of outcome, we placed studies into three groups for analysis: Pure Prevention cohorts (Group 1), Change in Smoking Behaviour over time (Group 2) and Point Prevalence of Smoking (Group 3). Main results: One hundred and thirty-four studies involving 428,293 participants met the inclusion criteria. Some studies provided data for more than one group. Pure Prevention cohorts (Group 1) included 49 studies (N = 142,447). Pooled results at follow-up at one year or less found no overall effect of intervention curricula versus control (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05). In a subgroup analysis, the combined social competence and social influences curricula (six RCTs) showed a statistically significant effect in preventing the onset of smoking (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; seven arms); whereas significant effects were not detected in programmes involving information only (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 14.87; one study), social influences only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; 25 studies), or multimodal interventions (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.08; five studies). In contrast, pooled results at longest follow-up showed an overall significant effect favouring the intervention (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96). Subgroup analyses detected significant effects in programmes with social competence curricula (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.88), and the combined social competence and social influences curricula (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87), but not in those programmes with information only, social influence only, and multimodal programmes. Change in Smoking Behaviour over time (Group 2) included 15 studies (N = 45,555). At one year or less there was a small but statistically significant effect favouring controls (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). For follow-up longer than one year there was a statistically nonsignificant effect (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.02). Twenty-five studies reported data on the Point Prevalence of Smoking (Group 3), though heterogeneity in this group was too high for data to be pooled. We were unable to analyse data for 49 studies (N = 152,544). Subgroup analyses (Pure Prevention cohorts only) demonstrated that at longest follow-up for all curricula combined, there was a significant effect favouring adult presenters (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96). There were no differences between tobacco-only and multifocal interventions. For curricula with booster sessions there was a significant effect only for combined social competence and social influences interventions with follow-up of one year or less (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.96) and at longest follow-up (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96). Limited data on gender differences suggested no overall effect, although one study found an effect of multimodal intervention at one year for male students. Sensitivity analyses for Pure Prevention cohorts and Change in Smoking Behaviour over time outcomes suggested that neither selection nor attrition bias affected the results. Authors' conclusions: Pure Prevention cohorts showed a significant effect at longest follow-up, with an average 12% reduction in starting smoking compared to the control groups. However, no overall effect was detected at one year or less. The combined social competence and social influences interventions showed a significant effect at one year and at longest follow-up. Studies that deployed a social influences programme showed no overall effect at any time point; multimodal interventions and those with an information-only approach were similarly ineffective. Studies reporting Change in Smoking Behaviour over time did not show an overall effect, but at an intervention level there were positive findings for social competence and combined social competence and social influences interventions.

/pdf/school-based-programmes-for-preventing-smoking-3y47h1ypfh.pdf

School‐based programmes for preventing smoking

Background Alcohol misuse in young people is cause of concern for health services, policy makers, prevention workers, criminal justice system, youth workers, teachers, parents. This is one of three reviews examining the effectiveness of (1) school-based, (2) family-based, and (3) multi-component prevention programs. Objectives To review evidence on the effectiveness of universal school-based prevention programs in preventing alcohol misuse in school-aged children up to 18 years of age. Search strategy Relevant evidence (up to 2002) was selected from the previous Cochrane review. Later studies, to July 2010, were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Project CORK, and PsycINFO. Selection criteria Randomized trials evaluating universal school-based prevention programs and reporting outcomes for alcohol use in students 18 years of age or younger were included. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full text of identified records. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers extracted relevant data independently using an a priori defined extraction form. Risk of bias was assessed. Main results 53 trials were included, most of which were cluster-randomised. The reporting quality of trials was poor, only 3.8% of them reporting adequate method of randomisation and program allocation concealment. Incomplete data was adequately addressed in 23% of the trials. Due to extensive heterogeneity across interventions, populations, and outcomes, the results were summarized only qualitatively. Six of the 11 trials evaluating alcohol-specific interventions showed some evidence of effectiveness compared to a standard curriculum. In 14 of the 39 trials evaluating generic interventions, the program interventions demonstrated significantly greater reductions in alcohol use either through a main or subgroup effect. Gender, baseline alcohol use, and ethnicity modified the effects of interventions. Results from the remaining 3 trials with interventions targeting cannabis, alcohol, and/or tobacco were inconsistent. Authors' conclusions This review identified studies that showed no effects of preventive interventions, as well as studies that demonstrated statistically significant effects. There was no easily discernible pattern in characteristics that would distinguish trials with positive results from those with no effects. Most commonly observed positive effects across programs were for drunkenness and binge drinking. Current evidence suggests that certain generic psychosocial and developmental prevention programs can be effective and could be considered as policy and practice options. These include the Life Skills Training Program, the Unplugged program, and the Good Behaviour Game. A stronger focus of future research on intervention program content and delivery context is warranted.

/pdf/universal-school-based-prevention-programs-for-alcohol-3fjju40t9u.pdf

Universal school-based prevention programs for alcohol misuse in young people

BACKGROUND\nSmoking rates in adolescents are rising in some countries. Helping young people to avoid starting smoking is a widely endorsed goal of public health, but there is uncertainty about how to do this. Schools provide a route for communicating with a large proportion of young people, and school-based programmes for smoking prevention have been widely developed and evaluated.\n\n\nOBJECTIVES\nTo review all randomized controlled trials of behavioural interventions in schools to prevent children (aged 5 to12) and adolescents (aged 13 to18) starting smoking.\n\n\nSEARCH STRATEGY\nWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsyclNFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Health Star, Dissertation Abstracts and studies identified in the bibliographies of articles. Individual MEDLINE searches were made for 133 authors who had undertaken randomized controlled trials in this area.\n\n\nSELECTION CRITERIA\nTypes of studies: those in which individual students, classes, schools, or school districts were randomized to the intervention or control groups and followed for at least six months.\n\n\nTYPES OF PARTICIPANTS\nChildren (aged 5 to12) or adolescents (aged 13 to18) in school settings. Types of interventions: Classroom programmes or curricula, including those with associated family and community interventions, intended to deter use of tobacco. We included programmes or curricula that provided information, those that used social influences approaches, those that taught generic social competence, and those that included interventions beyond the school into the community. We included programmes with a drug or alcohol focus if outcomes for tobacco use were reported. Types of outcome measures: Prevalence of non-smoking at follow up among those not smoking at baseline. We did not require biochemical validation of self-reported tobacco use for study inclusion.\n\n\nDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\nWe assessed whether identified citations were randomized controlled trials. We assessed the quality of design and execution, and abstracted outcome data. Because of the marked heterogeneity of design and outcomes, we computed pooled estimates only for those trials that could be analyzed together and for which statistical data were available. We predominantly synthesized the data using narrative systematic review. We grouped studies by intervention method (information; social competence; social influences; combined social influences/social competence; multi-modal programmes). Within each group, we placed them into three categories (low, medium and high risk of bias) according to validity using quality criteria for reported study design.\n\n\nMAIN RESULTS\nOf the 94 randomized controlled trials identified, we classified 23 as category one (most valid). There was one category one study of information-giving and two of teaching social comeptence. There were thirteen category one studies of social influences interventions. Of these, nine found some positive effect of intervention on smoking prevalence, and four failed to detect an effect on smoking prevalence. The largest and most rigorous study, the Hutchinson Smoking Prevention Project, found no long-term effect of an intensive eight-year programme on smoking behaviour. There were three category one RCTs of combined social influences and social competence interventions: one provided significant results and one only for instruction by health educators compared to self-instruction. There was a lack of high quality evidence about the effectiveness of combinations of social influences and social competence approaches. There was one category one study providing data on social influences compared with information giving. There were four category one studies of multi-modal approaches but they provided limited evidence about the effectiveness of multi-modal approaches including community initiatives.\n\n\nAUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS\nThere is one rigorous test of the effects of information-giving about smoking. There are well-conducted randomized controlled trials to test the effects of social influences interventions: in half of the group of best quality studies those in the intervention group smoke less than those in the control, but many studies failed to detect an effect of the intervention. There are only three high quality RCTs which test the effectiveness of combinations of social influences and social competence interventions, and four which test multi-modal interventions; half showed significant positive results.

School-based programmes for preventing smoking: School-based programmes for preventing smoking

A review of efforts at social system change in 526 universal competence-promotion outcome studies indicated that 64% of the interventions attempted some type of microsystemic or mesosystemic change involving schools, families, or community-based organizations in an attempt to foster developmental competencies in children and adolescents. Only 24% of the reports provided quantitative data on the change that occurred in targeted systems. However, studies containing the necessary information produced several mean effect sizes that were statistically significant, and ranged from modest to large in magnitude. These data indicate that attempts to change social systems affecting children and adolescents can be successful. Future work should measure more thoroughly the extent to which the systemic changes that are targeted through intervention are achieved, and investigate how such changes contribute to the development and sustainability of the outcomes that might be demonstrated by participants of competence-promotion programs.

Effects of positive youth development programs on school, family, and community systems

This study examines the effects of 2 brief family-focused interventions on the trajectories of substance initiation over a period of 6 years following a baseline assessment. The 2 interventions, designed for general-population families of adolescents, were the 7-session Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP) (Molgaard & Spoth, 2001) and the 5-session Preparing for the Drug Free Years Program (PDFY) (Catalano, Kosterman, Haggerty, Hawkins, & Spoth, 1999). Thirty-three rural public schools were randomly assigned to the ISFP, the PDFY, or a minimal-contact control condition. The authors evaluated the curvilinear growth observed in school-level measures of initiation using a logistic growth curve analysis. Alcohol and tobacco composite use indices—as well as lifetime use of alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana—and lifetime drunkenness, were examined. Significant intervention– control differences were observed, indicating favorable delays in initiation in the intervention groups. Although the use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana among adolescents in this country has leveled off, prevalence rates remain high. Recently, among 12th graders, the prevalence rate of lifetime alcohol use was 80%, the prevalence rate of lifetime cigarette use was 65%, and the prevalence rate of lifetime marijuana use was 50% (Johnston, O’Malley, & Bachman, 2000). Early initiation and use of substances have been associated with a broad range of problems, including reduced levels of competent, prosocial adult

/pdf/brief-family-intervention-effects-on-adolescent-substance-59hjwvgulc.pdf

Brief family intervention effects on adolescent substance initiation: school-level growth curve analyses 6 years following baseline.

Four years of longitudinal data from 373 families participating in a randomized intervention-control clinical trial were used to examine whether intervention effects on adolescent alcohol and tobacco use trajectories were moderated by family risk, as defined by parental social emotional maladjustment. Consistent with earlier outcome evaluations based on analyses of covariance, analyses confirmed that both the Preparing for the Drug Free Years program and the Iowa Strengthening Families Program favorably influenced alcohol use index trajectories across the time frame of the study; only the latter program, however, evidenced positive effects on a tobacco use index. Concerning the primary research question, analyses provided no support for family risk moderation of any intervention effect. Findings indicate the feasibility of developing universal preventive interventions that offer comparable benefits to all families.

Family-focused preventive interventions: evaluating parental risk moderation of substance use trajectories.

The authors report the intervention implementation and outcome evaluation of the Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14 (SFP 10-14),involving a sample of African American families with young adolescents. Implementation feasibility clearly was demonstrated. A sufficient number of families was recruited successfully, retention rates were strong, and observer ratings showed high adherence to the intervention protocol. Control group comparisons at posttest showed positive results for intervention-targeted child behaviors and for child participation in family meetings but not for other outcome measures. Findings of the investigation are discussed in terms of their relevance to ongoing intervention research with minority populations and considered in light of study limitations.

Exploratory Study of a Preventive Intervention with General Population African American Families

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Wei Chao

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Family-focused preventive interventions: evaluating parental risk moderation of substance use trajectories.

Exploratory Study of a Preventive Intervention with General Population African American Families