Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35658920›Full record

SynthesisBMC public health2022

Individual-, family- and school-based interventions to prevent multiple risk behaviours relating to alcohol, tobacco and drug use in young people aged 8-25 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Laura Tinner, Jennifer C Palmer, E Caitlin Lloyd, Deborah M Caldwell, Georgie J MacArthur, Kaiseree Dias, Rebecca Langford, James Redmore, Linda Wittkop, Sarah Holmes Watkins and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Three-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial of Motivational Interviewing for Adolescent Drinking in Denmark.Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

12 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Laura Tinner *Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. laura.tinner@bristol.ac.uk.
Jennifer C Palmer *Bristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
E Caitlin LloydDepartment of Psychiatry, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, USA.
Deborah M CaldwellBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Georgie J MacArthurBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Kaiseree DiasBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Rebecca LangfordBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
James RedmoreYork Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Wiggington Road, York, UK.
Linda WittkopBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Sarah Holmes WatkinsMRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit at the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Matthew HickmanBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Rona CampbellBristol Medical School, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
University of Bristol · GBNew York State Psychiatric InstituteYork Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

British Heart FoundationDepartment of HealthMedical Research Council MC_UU_00011/6Medical Research Council MR/L022206/1Medical Research Council MR/N00616X/1Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEngagement in multiple substance use risk behaviours such as tobacco smoking, alcohol and drug use during adolescence can result in adverse health and social outcomes. The impact of interventions that address multiple substance use risk behaviours, and the differential impact of universal versus targeted approaches, is unclear given findings from systematic reviews have been mixed. Our objective was to assess effects of interventions targeting multiple substance use behaviours in adolescents.

methodsEight databases were searched to October 2019. Individual and cluster randomised controlled trials were included if they addressed two or more substance use behaviours in individuals aged 8-25 years. Data were pooled in random-effects meta-analyses, reported by intervention and setting. Quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Heterogeneity was assessed using between-study variance, τ2 and Ι

resultsOf 66 included studies, most were universal (n=52) and school-based (n=41). We found moderate quality evidence that universal school-based interventions are likely to have little or no short-term benefit (up to 12 months) in relation to alcohol use (OR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.84, 1.04), tobacco use (OR 0.98, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.15), cannabis use (OR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.86, 1.31) and other illicit drug use (OR 1.09, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.39). For targeted school-level interventions, there was low quality evidence of no or a small short-term benefit: alcohol use (OR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.74-1.09), tobacco use (OR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.66, 1.11), cannabis use (OR 0.84, 95% CI: 0.66-1.07) and other illicit drug use (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62-1.02). There were too few family-level (n=4), individual-level (n=2) and combination level (n=5) studies to draw confident conclusions. Sensitivity analyses of ICC did not change results.

conclusionsThere is low to moderate quality evidence that universal and targeted school-level interventions have no or a small beneficial effect for preventing substance use multiple risk behaviours in adolescents. Higher quality trials and study reporting would allow better evidence syntheses, which is needed given small benefit of universal interventions can have high public health benefit.

trial registrationCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 11. Art. No.: CD011374. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011374.

Indexed as

Illicit DrugsSubstance-Related DisordersAdolescentHumansNicotianaRisk-TakingTobacco UseIllicit Drugs

Identifiers

PMID35658920
PMCPMC9165543
OpenAlexW4281701823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.