Evidence-based practice in school substance use prevention: Fidelity of implementation under real-world conditions

Health Education Research

Volumn 26, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 361-371

  Ennett, S T ^a   Haws, S ^a   Ringwalt, C L ^b   Vincus, A A ^b   Hanley, S ^a,b   Bowling, J M ^a   Rohrbach, L A ^c  

^a IL   (United States)

^b PACIFIC INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND EVALUATION   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADDICTION; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CURRICULUM; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FEMALE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; SCHOOL; STANDARD; STATISTICS; UNIVERSITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CURRICULUM; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; FACULTY; FEMALE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMANS; MALE; SCHOOLS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS;

EID: 79953194439     PISSN: 02681153     EISSN: 14653648     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/her/cyr013     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. NREPP: SAMSHA's National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practice. Available at: http://www.nrepp.samhsa.gov/. Accessed 30 June 2010.
2. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 2002; Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat 1425.
3. U.S. Department of Education. Safe and drug-free schools program. Notice of final principles of effectiveness. Fed Regist 1998; 63: 29902-6.
4. Ringwalt C, Vincus AA, Hanley S et al. The prevalence of evidence-based drug use prevention curricula in U.S. middle schools in 2008. Prev Sci 2011; 12: 63-69.
5. Botvin GJ. Advancing prevention science and practice: challenges, critical issues, and future directions. Prev Sci 2004; 5: 69-72. (Pubitemid 39023967)
6. Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol 2008; 41: 327-50.
7. Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Falco M et al. A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Educ Res 2003; 18: 237-56. (Pubitemid 36457251)
8. Elliott DS, Mihalic S. Issues in disseminating and replicating effective prevention programs. Prev Sci 2004; 5: 47-53. (Pubitemid 39023964)
9. Rohrbach LA, Grana R, Sussman S et al. Type II translation: transporting prevention interventions from research to realworld settings. Eval Health Prof 2006; 29: 302-33. (Pubitemid 44131398)
10. Botvin GJ, Baker E, Dusenbury L et al. Long term follow up results of a randomized drag abuse prevention trial in a white middle class population. J Am Med Assoc 1995; 273: 1106-12.
11. Dane AV, Schneider BH. Program integrity in primary an dearly secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control? Clin Psychol Rev 1998; 18: 23-45. (Pubitemid 28049555)
12. Stead M, Stradling R, MacNeil M et al. Implementation evaluation of the blueprint multi-component drug prevention programme: fidelity of school component delivery. Drug Alcohol Rev 2007; 26: 653-64.
13. Tobler NS, Stratton HH. Effectiveness of school-based drug prevention programs: a meta-analysis of the research. J Prim Prev 1997; 18: 71-128. (Pubitemid 27349949)
14. Ennett ST, Ringwalt CL, Thorne J et al. A comparison of current practice in school-based substance use prevention programs with meta-analysis findings. Prev Sci 2003; 4: 1-14. (Pubitemid 39012615)
15. Tobler NS, Roona MR, Ochshorn P et al. School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. J Prim Prev 2000; 20: 275-336. (Pubitemid 30211213)
16. Rohrbach LA, Graham JW, Hansen WB. Diffusion of a school-based substance abuse prevention program: predictors of program implementation. Prev Med 1993; 22: 237-60. (Pubitemid 23150667)
17. Orwin RG. Assessing program fidelity in substance abuse health services research. Addiction 2000; 95: S309-27.
18. Steckler AB, Linnan L. Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research, 1st edn. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002.
19. Skara S, Rohrbach LA, Sun P et al. An evaluation of the fidelity of implementation of a school-based drug abuse prevention program: Project toward No Drug Abuse (TND). J Drug Educ 2005; 35: 305-29. (Pubitemid 43980082)
20. Hansen WB, Graham JW, Wolkenstein BH et al. Program integrity as a moderator of prevention program effectiveness: results for fifth grade students in the adolescent alcohol prevention trial. J Stud Alcohol 1991; 52: 568-79.
21. Tortu S, Botvin GJ. School-based smoking prevention: the teacher training process. Prev Med 1989; 18: 280-9. (Pubitemid 19169147)
22. Mihalic SF, Fagan AA, Argamaso S. Implementing the Life-Skills Training drug prevention program: factors related to implementation fidelity. Implement Sci 2008; 3: 5.
23. Lillehoj CJ, Griffin KW, Spoth R. Program provider and observer ratings of school-based preventive intervention implementation: agreement and relation to youth outcomes. Health Educ Behav 2004; 31: 242-57. (Pubitemid 38569371)
24. Moncher FJ, Prinz RJ. Treatment fidelity in outcome studies. Clin Psychol Rev 1991; 11: 247-66.
25. Resnicow K, Smith M, Davis M. How best to measure implementation of health curricula? A comparison of three measures. Health Educ Res 1998; 13: 239-50. (Pubitemid 28276185)
26. Pentz MA, Trebow EA, Hansen WB et al. Effects of program implementation on adolescent drug use behavior: the midwestern prevention project (MPP). Eval Rev 1990; 14: 264-89.
27. Rohrbach LA, Dent CW, Skara S et al. Fidelity of implementation in Project towards No Drug Abuse (TND): a comparison of classroom teachers and program specialists. Prev Sci 2007; 8: 125-32.
28. Sloboda Z, Stephens P, Pyakuryal A et al. Implementation fidelity: the experience of the adolescent substance abuse prevention study. Health Educ Res 2009; 24: 394-406.
29. Hansen WB. Pilot test results comparing the all star program with seventh grade D.A.R.E.: program integrity and mediating variable analysis. Subst Use Misuse 1996; 31: 1359-77. (Pubitemid 26291970)
30. Harrington NG, Giles SM, Hoyle RH et al. Evaluation of the all stars character education and problem behavior prevention program: effects on mediator and outcome variables for middle school students. Health Educ Res 2001; 28: 533-46. (Pubitemid 33602903)
31. Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Hansen WB et al. Quality of implementation: developing measures crucial to understanding the diffusion of preventive interventions. Health Educ Res 2005; 20: 308-13. (Pubitemid 40732816)
32. Hallfors D, Godette D. Will the 'principles of effectiveness' improve prevention practice? early findings from a diffusion study. Health Educ Res 2002; 17: 461-70.
33. Hansen WB, McNeal RB. Drug education practice: results of an observational study. Health Educ Res 1999; 14: 85-97. (Pubitemid 29082227)
34. Ringwalt CL, Ennett S, Vincus A, et al. The prevalence of effective substance use prevention curricula in U.S. middle schools. Prev Sci 2002; 3: 257-65. (Pubitemid 44133864)
35. Quality Education Data Inc. QED National Education Database: Data Users Guide, Version 4.6. Denver, CO: Author, 1998.
36. National Center for Education Statistics. Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey Data, 2002-03. [data file]. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubagency.asp. Accessed: 21 February 2007.
37. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Blueprints for Violence Prevention: Model Programs and Promising Programs. Available at: http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/modelprograms.html and http://www.colorado.edu/cspv/blueprints/promisingprograms.html. Accessed February 2007.
38. Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools Expert Panel. Exemplary Programs. Available at:http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert-panel/ 2001exemplary-sddfs.html. Accessed February 2007.
39. SAS [computer program]. Version 9.1.3. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc, 2003.
40. Rogers EM. Diffusions of Innovations, 4th edn. New York, NY: The Free Press, 1995.