Trial reportEvaluation & the health professions2012
Prevention education effects on fundamental memory processes.
Trial report in Evaluation & the health professions, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitions mediate the influence of personality on adolescent cannabis use initiation.Addictive behaviors reports · 2022Article
- Sense of coherence and tobacco use myths among adolescents as predictors of at-risk youth cigarette use.Substance use & misuse · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated effects of a key session from a nationally recognized drug abuse prevention program on basic memory processes in 211 high-risk youth in Southern California. In a randomized, between-subject design, the authors manipulated assignment to a Myth and Denial program session and the time of assessment (immediate vs. 1-week delay). The authors examined program decay effects on memory accessibility and judgment errors. Those participants exposed to the program session generated more myths and facts from the program than those in the control group, suggesting that even a single program session influenced students' memory for program information and this was retained at least 1 week and detectable with indirect tests of memory accessibility. However, consistent with basic research perspectives, participants in the program-delayed assessment group erroneously generated more fact-related information from the session to the prompt "It is a myth that_____" than the participants in the program immediate assessment group; that is, they retained more facts as myths. These types of program effects, anticipated by basic memory theory, were not detected with a traditional judgment task in the present sample. The results suggest that basic science approaches offer a novel way of conceptually recasting prevention effects to more completely understand how these effects may operate. Implications for program evaluation and conceptualization are discussed.
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.