Replacing ineffective early alcohol/drug education in the United States with age-appropriate adolescent programmes and assistance to problematic users

Drug and Alcohol Review

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2007, Pages 577-584

  Skager, Rodney ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Adolescent; Age appropriate; Alcohol drug; Education

Indexed keywords

ADDICTION; ADOLESCENT; AGE; ALCOHOLISM; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REVIEW; SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICE; STUDENT; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; AGE FACTORS; ALCOHOL-RELATED DISORDERS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH POLICY; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; SCHOOL HEALTH SERVICES; STUDENTS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 35448962383     PISSN: 09595236     EISSN: 14653362     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09595230701613569     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Skager R. Drug education in a climate of zero tolerance: finding solutions vs. minimizing problems. In: Midford R, Munro G, eds. Drug education in schools: searching for the silver bullet. Melbourne: IP Communications, 2006:166-90.
2. Hallfors D, Pankratz M, Hartman S. Does federal policy support the use of scientific evidence in school-based prevention programs? Prev Sci 2007;8:75-81.
3. United States Government Accountability Office. ONDCP media campaign: contractor's national evaluation did not find that the youth anti-drug media campaign was effective in reducing youth drug use. 2006;August:GAO-06-818.
4. Johnson LD, O'Malley PM, Bachman JG, et al. Monitoring the future national results on adolescent drug use: overview of key findings, 2006. NIH Publication no. 07-6202. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 2007.
5. Skager R, Austin G. Eleventh California student survey. Sacramento: Office of the Attorney General of California, Crime Prevention Center, 2007.
6. Ennett ST, Tobler NS, Ringwalt SL, Flewelling RL. How effective is drug abuse resistance education? Am J Public Health 1994;84:1394-401.
7. Rosenbaum D, Hanson G. Assessing the effects of schoolbased drug education: a six-year multilevel analysis of project DARE. J Res Crime Delinq 1998;35:381-412.
8. Lynam DR, Milich R, Zimmerman R, et al. Project DARE: no effects at 10-year follow-up. J Consult Clin Psych 1999;67:590-3.
9. United States Department of Education. Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. Federal Register 1998;63:29901-06.
10. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. Law no. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, 2002. Available at: http://www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/ (accessed April 2007).
11. National Institutes on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Preventing drug use among children and adolescents: a research-based guide for parents, educators and community leaders, 2nd edn. Rockville, MD: NIDA, 2003.
12. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA). SAMSHA Model Programs. Rockville, MD: SAMHSA. Available at: http://www.modelprograms.samhsa. gov/ (assessed April 2007).
13. Flay BR, Biglan A, Boruch RF, et al. Standards of evidence: criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prev Sci 2005;6:151-75.
14. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Blueprints for violence prevention overview. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado, 2006. Available at http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/model/criteria.html (accessed April 2006).
15. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Changes to the national registry of evidence-based programs and practices (NREPP). Federal Register 2006;71:13132-55.
16. Gandhi AG, Murphy-Graham E, Petrosino A. The devil is in the details: examining the evidence for 'proven' school-based drug abuse prevention programs. Eval Rev 2007;31:43-74.
17. Gorman DM. On the difference between statistical and practical significance in school-based drug abuse prevention. Drug Educ Prev Policy 1995;2:275-83.
18. Gorman DM. Prevention programs and scientific nonsense. Policy Rev 2003;117:1-9.
19. Gorman DM. Drug and violence prevention: rediscovering the critical rational dimension of evaluation research. J Exp Criminol 2005;1:3962.
20. Petrosino A, Soydan H. The impact of program developers as evaluators on criminal recidivism: results from metaanalyses of experimental and quasi-experimental research. J Exp Criminol 2005;1:435-50.
21. Gorman DM. The 'science' of drug and alcohol prevention: the case of the randomized trial of the Life Skills Training Program. Int J Drug Policy 2002;13:21-6.
22. Gorman DM. Preventing adolescent drug use: the effectiveness of Project ALERT. Am J Public Health 1994;84:500.
23. Hallfors D, Cho H, Sanchez V, Khatapoush S, Kim HM, Bauer D. Efficacy vs. effectiveness trial results of an indicated 'model' substance abuse program: Implications for public health. Am J Public Health 2006;96:2254-9.
24. Eggert LL, Thompson EA, Herting JR, et al. Preventing adolescent drug abuse and high school dropout through an intensive school-based social network development program. Am J Health Prom 1994;8:202-15.
25. St Pierre TL, Osgood DW, Mincemoyer CC, et al. Results of an independent evaluation of Project ALERT delivered in schools by cooperative extension. Prev Sci 2005;6:305-17.
26. Ellickson P, Miller L, Robyn A, et al. Project ALERT. Los Angeles, CA: Best Foundation for a drug-free tomorrow, 2000.
27. Gorman DM. Do school-based social skills training programs prevent alcohol use among young people? Addict Res 1996;4:191-210.
28. Gorman DM. Are school-based resistance skills training programs effective in preventing alcohol misuse? J Alcohol Drug Educ 1995;41:74-98.
29. Hansen WB, Graham JW. Preventing alcohol, marijuana and cigarette use among adolescents: peer pressure resistance training vs. establishing conservative norms. Prev Med 1991;20:414-30.
30. Harris JR. Where is the child's environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychol Bull 1995;102:458-89.
31. Killeya-Jones LA, Nakajima R, Costanzo PR. Perceived physical maturity, age of romantic partner, and adolescent risk behavior. Prev Sci 2007;8:1-10.
32. Cook-Sather A. Authorizing student perspectives: toward trust, dialogue, and change in education. Ed Research 2002;31:3-14.
33. Ringwalt C, Ennett S, Vincus A, Thorne K, Rohrbach L. The prevalence of effective substance use prevention curricula in US middle schools. Prev Sei 2002;3:257-65.
34. St Pierre T, Kaltreider DL. Tales of refusal, adoption, and maintenance: evidence-based substance abuse prevention via school-extension collaborations. Am J Eval 2004;25:479-91.
35. Silvia ES, Thorne J. School-based drug prevention programs: a longitudinal study in selected school districts. 1997. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute,
36. Ringwalt C, Vincus A, Simons-Rudolph A. Student's special needs and problems as reasons for the adaptation of substance abuse prevention curricula in the nation's schools. Prev Sci 2004;53:197-206.
37. Hallfors D, Godette D. Will the 'principles of effectiveness' improve evaluation practice? Early findings from a diffusion study. Health Educ Res 2002;17:461-70.
38. Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Hansen WB, Walsh J, Falco M. Quality of implementation: developing measures crucial to understanding the diffusion of preventive interventions. Health Educ Res 2005;20:308-13.
39. Castro FG, Barrera M, Martinez CR. The cultural adaptation of prevention interventions: resolving tension between fidelity and fit. Prev Sci 2004;5:41-5.
40. Sanchez V, Steckler A, Nitirat P, Hallfors D, Cho H, Brodish P. Fidelity of implementation in a treatment effectiveness trial of Reconnecting Youth. Health Educ Res 2007;22:95-107.
41. Dishion TJ, McCord J, Poulin F. When interventions harm: peer groups and problem behavior. Am Psychol 1999;54:755-64.
42. St Pierre T, Osgood DW, Siennick SE, Kauh TJ, Burden FF. Project ALERT with outside leaders: what leader characteristics are important for success? Prev Sci 2007;8:51-64.
43. Resnick MD, Bearman PS, Blum RW, et al. Protecting adolescents from harm: findings from the National Long-itudinal Study on Adolescent Health. JAMA 278:823-32.
44. Kimberly LH, Swaim RC, Slater MD. Intraindividual variability of school bonding and adolescents' beliefs about the effect of substance use on future aspirations. Prev Sci 2007;6:101-12.
45. Epstein R. The myth of the teen brain. Sci Am Mind 2007;April/May:56-63.
46. Epstein R. The case against adolescence: rediscovering the adult in every teen. Sanger, CA: Quill Driver Books, 2007.
47. Hine T. The rise and fall of the American teenager: a new history of the American adolescent experience. New York: Harper Collins, 1999.
48. Skager R. Beyond zero tolerance: a reality-based approach to drug and student assistance. Available at: www.beyondzerotolerance.org