Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15846647›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2005

School-based prevention for illicit drugs' use.

F Faggiano, F D Vigna-Taglianti, E Versino, A Zambon, A Borraccino, P Lemma

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Universal school-based prevention for illicit drug use.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  9. Mentoring adolescents to prevent drug and alcohol use.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

F FaggianoDepartment of Medical Sciences, University of Piemonte Orientale "A.Avogadro", Via Solaroli 17, Novara, Italy, 28100. fabrizio.faggiano@med.unipmn.it
F D Vigna-Taglianti
E Versino
A Zambon
A Borraccino
P Lemma

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug addiction is a chronic, relapsing disease. Primary interventions should be aimed to reduce first use, or prevent the transition from experimental use to addiction. School is the appropriate setting for preventive interventions.

objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of school-based interventions in improving knowledge, developing skills, promoting change, and preventing or reducing drug use versus usual curricular activities or a different school-based intervention . SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE , EMBASE, ERIC, PSYCHINFO, Cochrane Library, ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Drug and Alcohol Group Register, updated to February 2004, were searched. Bibliography of papers was checked and personal contacts were made to identify other relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs, CCTs or Controlled Prospective Studies (CPS) evaluating school-based interventions designed to prevent substance use. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were selected and extracted independently by two reviewers. Quality was assessed with the CDAG checklist. Interventions were classified as skills, affective, knowledge-focused and other characteristics were also studied (teaching, follow-up implementation, context activation). MAIN

results32 studies (29 RCTs and 3 CPSs) were included. 28 were conducted in the USA; most were focused on 6th-7th grade students, and based on post-test assessment. RCTs: (1) Knowledge vs usual curricula: Knowledge focused programs improve drug knowledge (SMD=0.91; 95% CI: 0.42, 1.39).(2) Skills vs usual curricula: Skills based interventions increase drug knowledge (WMD=2.60; 95% CI: 1.17-4.03), decision making skills (SMD=0.78; CI95%: 0.46-1.09), self-esteem (SMD=0.22; CI95%: 0.03-0.40), peer pressure resistance (RR=2.05; CI95%: 1.24-3.42), drug use (RR=0.81; CI95%: 0.64, 1.02), marijuana use (RR=0.82; CI95%: 0.73, 0.92) and hard drug use (RR=0.45; CI95%: 0.24-0.85). (3) Skills vs knowledge: No differences are evident.(4) Skills vs affective: Skills-based interventions are only better than affective ones in self-efficacy (WMD=1.90; CI95%: 0.25, 3.55). (5) Affective vs usual curricula: Affective interventions improve drug knowledge (SMD=1.88; CI95%: 1.27, 2.50) and decision making skills (SMD=1.35; CI95%: 0.79, 1.9). (6) Affective vs knowledge: Affective interventions improve drug knowledge (SMD=0.60; CI95%: 0.18,1.03), and decision making skills (SMD=1.22; CI95%: 0.33, 2.12). Results from CPSs: No statistically significant results emerge from CPSs. AUTHORS'

conclusionsSkills based programs appear to be effective in deterring early-stage drug use. The replication of results with well designed, long term randomised trials, and the evaluation of single components of intervention (peer, parents, booster sessions) are the priorities for research. All new studies should control for cluster effect.

Indexed as

School Health ServicesAdolescentControlled Clinical Trials as TopicHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSubstance-Related Disorders

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.