» Articles » PMID: 2213870

The Efficacy of Social-influence Prevention Programs Versus "standard Care": Are New Initiatives Needed?

Overview
Journal J Behav Med
Specialty Social Sciences
Date 1990 Jun 1
PMID 2213870
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study evaluates the effects of a school-based smoking prevention program after 1 year, using school (22 middle/elementary schools, 15 high schools) as both the unit of randomization and the unit of analysis. The multigrade level (grades 6 through 9) intervention was designed to address comprehensively the social influence factors that encourage smoking. Teacher survey data indicated that treatment schools had a median of 10 classroom sessions devoted to tobacco/drug use education, 5 of which were the sessions designed for this evaluation, and control schools had also dedicated a median of 10 classroom sessions to tobacco/drug education. Thus, the study evaluated the incremental effects of the social influence intervention compared to "standard-care" curricula. Among those who reported smoking one or more cigarettes in the month prior to the intervention, there was a significant treatment effect on rate of smoking at one year, but no grade level, gender, or interaction effects. The 1-year covariate-adjusted smoking rate among pretest smokers in the treatment schools was 76.6 cigarettes per month, compared to 111.6 cigarettes per month in control schools, a 31.4% difference. These effects were not accounted for by differential subject attrition. The analyses for nonsmokers, however, showed no significant effects, and the program did not affect self-reported alcohol or marijuana use. Taken together with the results of other prevention studies, these results point to the need for the development and evaluation of new initiatives to prevent substance use.

Citing Articles

Understanding the mechanisms of change in social norms around tobacco use: A systematic review and meta-analysis of interventions.

Lahiri S, Bingenheimer J, Evans W, Wang Y, Cislaghi B, Dubey P Addiction. 2024; 120(2):215-235.

PMID: 39394921 PMC: 11707324. DOI: 10.1111/add.16685.


Family-based programmes for preventing smoking by children and adolescents.

Thomas R, Baker P, Thomas B, Lorenzetti D Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; (2):CD004493.

PMID: 25720328 PMC: 6486099. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004493.pub3.


School-based programmes for preventing smoking.

Thomas R, McLellan J, Perera R Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013; (4):CD001293.

PMID: 23633306 PMC: 7028068. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001293.pub3.


Increasing the prevalence of successful children: The case for community intervention research.

Biglan A, Metzler C, Ary D Behav Anal. 2012; 17(2):335-51.

PMID: 22478196 PMC: 2733467. DOI: 10.1007/BF03392680.


Effects of sixty six adolescent tobacco use cessation trials and seventeen prospective studies of self-initiated quitting.

Sussman S Tob Induc Dis. 2009; 1(1):35-81.

PMID: 19570247 PMC: 2671530. DOI: 10.1186/1617-9625-1-1-35.


References
1.
Severson H, Ary D . Sampling bias due to consent procedures with adolescents. Addict Behav. 1983; 8(4):433-7. DOI: 10.1016/0306-4603(83)90046-1. View

2.
HUNDLEBY J, Carpenter R, Ross R, Mercer G . Adolescent drug use and other behaviors. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1982; 23(1):61-8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.1982.tb00049.x. View

3.
Bry B, McKeon P, Pandina R . Extent of drug use as a function of number of risk factors. J Abnorm Psychol. 1982; 91(4):273-9. DOI: 10.1037//0021-843x.91.4.273. View

4.
Benowitz N, Hall S, Herning R, Jacob 3rd P, Jones R, Osman A . Smokers of low-yield cigarettes do not consume less nicotine. N Engl J Med. 1983; 309(3):139-42. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198307213090303. View

5.
Biglan A, Severson H, Bavry J, McConnell S . Social influence and adolescent smoking: a first look behind the barn. Health Educ. 1983; 14(5):14-8. View