Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28643133›Full record

ArticlePrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2017

Children with Elevated Psychosocial Risk Load Benefit Most from a Family-Based Preventive Intervention: Exploratory Differential Analyses from the German "Strengthening Families Program 10-14" Adaptation Trial.

Sonja Bröning, Christiane Baldus, Monika Thomsen, Peter-Michael Sack, Nicolas Arnaud, Rainer Thomasius

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Beyond effectiveness of the Strengthening Families Program (10-14): a scoping RE-AIM-based review.Psicologia, reflexao e critica : revista semestral do Departamento de Psicologia da UFRGS · 2021
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
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

6 authors.

Sonja BröningGerman Center for Addiction Research in Childhood and Adolescence (DZSKJ), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. s.broening@uke.de.
Christiane BaldusGerman Center for Addiction Research in Childhood and Adolescence (DZSKJ), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Monika ThomsenGerman Center for Addiction Research in Childhood and Adolescence (DZSKJ), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Peter-Michael SackGerman Center for Addiction Research in Childhood and Adolescence (DZSKJ), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Nicolas ArnaudGerman Center for Addiction Research in Childhood and Adolescence (DZSKJ), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Rainer ThomasiusGerman Center for Addiction Research in Childhood and Adolescence (DZSKJ), University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung Grant 01EL0810
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the effectiveness of substance use prevention programs such as the Strengthening Families Program 10-14 (SFP) has been demonstrated in the USA, European SFP adaptations have not replicated these sizable effects. Following the rationale of the risk moderation hypothesis positing that elevated risk groups may benefit more from a preventive intervention than lower-risk groups, we reanalyzed evaluation data from a randomized controlled trial testing the adapted German version of SFP (SFP-D). We hypothesized a differential impact of risk status on intervention results. The study employed a minimal control condition. Of the N = 292 participating children, 73.5% qualified as at-risk because they lived in a deprived urban district, and 26.5% qualified as high risk because they additionally scored as "difficult" in the German Strengths and Difficulty Questionnaire (parents' reports using gender- and age-specific German norms). Outcomes were children's self-reports on substance use, mental health, family functioning, and quality of life. Data were analyzed with repeated measures linear mixed models and relative risk analyses. The high-risk group in the SFP-D condition achieved the best results compared with all other groups, especially in mental health and quality of life. Relative risk analyses on tobacco [alcohol] abstinence showed that an additional percentage of 29.8% [16.0%] of high-risk children in nonabstinent controls would have remained abstinent if they had participated in SFP-D. We conclude that risk load influences the impact of substance use prevention programs and discuss to what extent differential analyses can add value to prevention research.

Indexed as

AdolescentChildFamilyGermanyHumansMental HealthPreventive MedicineQuality of LifeRiskDifferential impactEarly adolescenceFamily-based preventionRandomized trialSubstance use

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.