Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27064553›Full record

SynthesisClinical psychology review2016

A component-centered meta-analysis of family-based prevention programs for adolescent substance use.

Mark J Van Ryzin, Cary J Roseth, Gregory M Fosco, You-Kyung Lee, I-Chien Chen

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical psychology review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
74citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
13.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

74 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 157 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Outcomes from a Randomized Controlled Trial of the Relief Nursery Program.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2020
    Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Evaluating general parent-adolescent relations as a context for daily relationship processes and adolescent mood.Journal of research on adolescence : the official journal of the Society for Research on Adolescence · 2026
    Article
  15. Understanding Who Benefits Most from Family-Based Prevention: Differential Intervention Effects for Families with Low Income.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Mark J Van RyzinOregon Research Institute, 1776 Millrace Drive, Eugene, OR 97403, USA. Electronic address: markv@ori.org.
Cary J RosethMichigan State University College of Education, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Gregory M FoscoPennsylvania State University College of Health and Human Development, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
You-Kyung LeeMichigan State University College of Education, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
I-Chien ChenMichigan State University College of Education, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Michigan State University · USOregon Research Institute · USPennsylvania State University · US

Funding

Meta-Analysis of Family-Based Prevention Programs for Adolescent Substance AbuseR03DA032871 · NIDA · OREGON SOCIAL LEARNING CENTER, INC. · PI VAN RYZIN, MARK JOHN · 2012 to 2013
$156k
NIDA NIH HHS R03 DA032871
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although research has documented the positive effects of family-based prevention programs, the field lacks specific information regarding why these programs are effective. The current study summarized the effects of family-based programs on adolescent substance use using a component-based approach to meta-analysis in which we decomposed programs into a set of key topics or components that were specifically addressed by program curricula (e.g., parental monitoring/behavior management,problem solving, positive family relations, etc.). Components were coded according to the amount of time spent on program services that targeted youth, parents, and the whole family; we also coded effect sizes across studies for each substance-related outcome. Given the nested nature of the data, we used hierarchical linear modeling to link program components (Level 2) with effect sizes (Level 1). The overall effect size across programs was .31, which did not differ by type of substance. Youth-focused components designed to encourage more positive family relationships and a positive orientation toward the future emerged as key factors predicting larger than average effect sizes. Our results suggest that, within the universe of family-based prevention, where components such as parental monitoring/behavior management are almost universal, adding or expanding certain youth-focused components may be able to enhance program efficacy.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultChildFamilyHumansProgram EvaluationSubstance-Related DisordersYoung AdultAdolescenceFamily-based preventionMeta-analysisSubstance use

Identifiers

PMID27064553
PMCPMC4856569
OpenAlexW2333025660

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.