ArticleThe Journal of school health2009
Responses to positive results from suspicionless random drug tests in US public school districts.
Article in The Journal of school health, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Random student drug testing as a school-based drug prevention strategy.Addiction (Abingdon, England) · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about the context in which school-based suspicionless random drug testing (SRDT) occurs. The primary purpose of the current study was to describe school districts' responses to students' first positive result in districts with SRDT programs.
methodsData were collected in spring 2005 from 1612 drug prevention coordinators in a nationally representative sample of 1922 school districts (83.9% response rate), of which 205 districts reported SRDT in high school grades.
resultsRespondents reported an array of consequences for students with an initial positive SRDT, including requiring parents or guardians to meet with school officials (88.4%) and requiring students to participate in an education, counseling, or treatment program (60.8%). However, some districts also reported consequences contraindicated by federal advisory guides, such as notifying law enforcement officials (45.1%) and suspending the student from an athletic team (65.0%) or from school (31.0%). Some respondents may have conflated their districts' responses to for cause and random tests. Districts generally had available key services for students testing positive, including professional counseling for substance use problems (87.3%) and referrals to counseling services (91.9%).
conclusionsMore understanding is needed of schools' responses to students who test positive following the administration of SRDT, available advisory guides concerning best practices should be more effectively disseminated, and appropriate training and technical assistance should be available to schools with SRDTs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.