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.
OBJECTIVE: Estimate effectiveness of goal setting for nutrition and physical activity behavior change, review the effect of goal-setting characteristics on behavior change, and investigate effectiveness of interventions containing goal setting.
DATA SOURCE: For this review, a literature search was conducted for the period January 1977 through December 2003 that included a Current Contents, Biosis Previews, Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, and ERIC search of databases and a reference list search. Key words were goal, goal setting, nutrition, diet, dietary, physical activity, exercise, behavior change, interventions, and fitness.
STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: The search identified 144 studies, of which 28 met inclusion criteria for being published in a peer reviewed journal and using goal setting in an intervention to modify dietary or physical activity behaviors. Excluded from this review were those studies that (1) evaluated goal setting cross-sectionally without an intervention; (2) used goal setting for behavioral disorders, to improve academic achievement, or in sports performance; (3) were reviews.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The articles were categorized by target audience and secondarily by research focus. Data extracted included outcome measure, research rating, purpose, sample, sample description, assignment, findings, and goal-setting support.
RESULTS: Thirteen of the 23 adult studies used a goal-setting effectiveness study design and eight produced positive results supporting goal setting. No adolescent or child studies used this design. The results were inconclusive for the studies investigating goal-setting characteristics (n = 7). Four adult and four child intervention evaluation studies showed positive outcomes. No studies reported power calculations, and only 32% of the studies were rated as fully supporting goal setting.
CONCLUSIONS: Goal setting has shown some promise in promoting dietary and physical activity behavior change among adults, but methodological issues still need to be resolved. The literature with adolescents and children is limited, and the authors are not aware of any published studies with this audience investigating the independent effect of goal setting on dietary or physical activity behavior. Although, goal setting is widely used with children and adolescents in nutrition interventions, its effectiveness has yet to be reported.
PURPOSE: To review adolescent sexual risk-reduction programs that were evaluated using quasi-experimental or experimental methods and published in the 1990s. We describe evaluated programs and identify program and evaluation issues for health educators and researchers.
METHODS: We systematically searched seven electronic databases and hand-searched journals to identify evaluations of behavioral interventions to reduce sexual risk behaviors among adolescents. Articles were included if they were published in the 1990s, provided a theoretical basis for the program, information about the interventions, clear aims, and quasi-experimental or experimental evaluation methods. We identified 101 articles, and 24 met our criteria for inclusion.
RESULTS: We reviewed these evaluations to assess their research and program characteristics. The majority of studies included randomized controlled designs and employed delayed follow-up measures. The most commonly measured outcomes were delay of initiation of sexual intercourse, condom use, contraceptive use, and frequency of sexual intercourse. Programs ranged from 1 to 80 sessions, most had adult facilitators, and commonly included skills-building activities about sexual communication, decision-making, and problem solving. The programs included a wide range of strategies for content delivery such as arts and crafts, school councils, and community service learning.
CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of these programs suggest four overall factors that may impact program effectiveness including the extent to which programs focus on specific skills for reducing sexual risk behaviors; program duration and intensity; what constitutes the content of a total evaluated program including researchers' assumptions of participants' exposure to prior and concurrent programs; and what kind of training is available for facilitators.
This study (a) clarifies the rationale for designing developmentally appropriate interventions, (b) reviews randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adolescent sexual risk reduction interventions, (c) identifies developmentally appropriate strategies, (d) examines the relationship between developmental appropriateness and sexual risk outcomes, and (e) provides recommendations for research. The authors examined studies published before 2003 that evaluated a risk reduction intervention, sampled adolescents, used an RCT study design, and evaluated sexual behavior outcomes. Content analysis indicated that the interventions tested were often tailored to the cognitive level of adolescents, as indicated by the use of exercises on decision making, goal setting and planning, and concrete explanation of abstract concepts. Interventions also addressed the social influences of risky sex such as peer norms and provided communication skills training. Overall, the interventions tested in RCTs were more effective in delaying the onset of sexual activity than in promoting abstinence among sexually active youth. Interventions with booster sessions were effective in reducing sexual risk behavior. Developmental transitions during adolescence influence sexual behavior. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
Psychosocial smoking prevention studies have shown inconsistent results and theory-driven programs have been related to program success. This meta-analysis was used as a judgment tool for resolving these issues by estimating average program effects and investigating the relative efficacy of program types. The present study examined 65 adolescent psychosocial smoking prevention programs (1978 to 1997) among students in Grades 6 to 12 in the United States. Three program modalities (social influence, cognitive behavior, life skill) and two program settings (exclusively school based, school-community-incorporated) were identified as major a priori classifications. Knowledge had the highest effect sizes (.53) at short-term (< or = 1 year) but rapidly decreased (.19) at long-term (> 1 year). Behavioral effect was the most meaningful, being persistent over a 3-year period (.19 at < or = 1 year; .18 at 1 to 3 years). Adolescent smoking reduction rates were increased by using either cognitive behavior or life skills program modalities, and/or a school-community-incorporated program setting.
This paper identifies the best characteristics of gateway drug prevention programs that have the effect of preventing or reducing the use of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana by adolescents. A comprehensive literature review of the performance of school-, family-, and community-based drug prevention programs covering the last 20 years was conducted to identify the best characteristics of successful programs. Six characteristics were identified that are common to successful drug prevention programs: involving parents; teaching life and resistance skills and normative education; enacting laws and policies against adolescent drug use; encouraging peer participation; conducting a media campaign; and retaining program participants. School administrators, parents, and community leaders can use the knowledge in this paper to design drug prevention programs that can accommodate specific risk factors and types of gateway drug use by adolescents.
OBJECTIVE: To summarize studies that have tested the efficacy of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) sexual risk-reduction interventions in adolescents.
DATA SOURCES: Reports were gathered from computerized databases, by contacting individual researchers, by searching conference proceedings and relevant journals, and by reviewing reference sections of obtained articles.
STUDY SELECTION: Studies were included if they investigated any educational, psychosocial, or behavioral intervention advocating sexual risk reduction for HIV prevention; used experimental designs (or other designs with adequate comparison groups); had behavioral-dependent measures relevant to sexual risk; sampled adolescents (age range, 11-18 years); and had sufficient information to calculate effect size (ES) estimates. Data from 44 studies and 56 interventions (N = 35 282 participants) that were available as of January 2, 2001, were included.
DATA EXTRACTION: Study information was coded, and individual ESs were calculated in SD units (the difference between the intervention and comparison condition means, divided by the pooled SD), with ESs coded so that positive signs indicated greater risk reduction.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Across the studies, reductions in sexual risk were greater for adolescents who received the HIV risk-reduction intervention compared with those in the comparison conditions for 5 dimensions: condom use negotiation skills (mean ES, 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41-0.59), condom use skills (mean ES, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.09-0.51), communications with sexual partners (mean ES, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.19-0.36), condom use (mean ES, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.11), and sexual frequency (mean ES, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02-0.09). Interventions achieved greater success with condom use (1) in noninstitutionalized populations, (2) when condoms were provided, (3) with more condom information and skills training, (4) when the comparison group received less HIV skills training, and (5) when the comparison group received more non-HIV-related sexual education.
CONCLUSION: Intensive behavioral interventions reduced sexual HIV risk, especially because they increased skill acquisition, sexual communications, and condom use and decreased the onset of sexual intercourse or the number of sexual partners.
This paper provides an up-to-date systematic review of the school drug education literature (to June 2001) and identifies components that have the potential for creating effective drug education programmes in schools. This paper is a summary of a 150-page review. The review adopts a well-defined search methodology, specific selection criteria, and has made a series of recommendations based on the findings of past reviews and recent primary studies that met the selection criteria. The review is inclusive of reviews and recent primary studies that involved young people in school settings that encompassed a classroom intervention, included drug-related behavioural measures and had a positive impact on students' drug-related behaviours. The review identifies several areas that should be the focus of future programmes. These include timing and programming issues, content and delivery issues, teacher training, and dissemination. There is much refinement that can occur in school drug education implementation and research. The way forward is to continue to create and test interventions that bring together all components of the development, implementation and evaluation of school drug education that are effective in creating behaviour change, and that are practical to the school setting.
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.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
