Cited by 32Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentYouth, Drugs, and Violence

Interventions to Prevent Illicit and Nonmedical Drug Use in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults: Updated Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Open access
O’Connor, Elizabeth, Thomas, Rachel, Senger, Caitlyn A., Perdue, Leslie, Robalino, Shannon, Patnode, Carrie·2020·JAMA

Abstract

Importance: Illicit and nonmedical (use in ways other than instructed) drug use is common in adolescents and young adults and increases the risk of harmful outcomes such as injuries, violence, and poorer academic performance. Objective: To review the benefits and harms of interventions to prevent illicit and nonmedical drug use in children, adolescents, and young adults to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. Data Sources: MEDLINE, PubMED, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (January 1, 2013, to January 31, 2019 [children and adolescents]; January 1, 1992, to January 31, 2019 [young adults <25 years]); surveillance through March 20, 2020. Study Selection: Clinical trials of behavioral counseling interventions to prevent initiation of illicit and nonmedical drug use among young people. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Critical appraisal was completed independently by 2 investigators. Data were extracted by 1 reviewer and checked by a second. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the effect sizes associated with the interventions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of times illicit drugs were used; any illicit drug or any cannabis use. Results: Twenty-nine trials (N = 18 353) met inclusion criteria. Health, social, or legal outcomes such as mental health symptoms, family functioning, consequences of drug use, and arrests were reported in 19 trials and most showed no group differences. The effects on illicit drug use in 26 trials among nonpregnant youth (n = 17 811) were highly variable; the pooled result did not show a clinically important or statistically significant association with illicit drug use (standardized mean difference, -0.08 [95% CI, -0.16 to 0.001]; 24 effects [from 23 studies]; n = 12 801; I2 = 57.0%). The percentage of participants using illicit drugs ranged from 2.3% to 38.6% in the control groups and 2.4% to 33.7% in the intervention groups at 3 to 32 months' follow-up. The median absolute risk difference between groups was -2.8%, favoring the intervention group (range, -11.5% to 14.8%). The remaining 3 trials provided a perinatal home-visiting intervention to pregnant Native American youth. One trial (n=322) found a reduction in illicit drug use at 38 months (eg, cannabis use in the previous month, 10.7% in the intervention group and 15.6% in the control group) but not at earlier follow-up assessments. Across all 29 trials, only 1 trial reported on harms and found no statistically significant group differences. Conclusions and Relevance: The evidence for behavioral counseling interventions to prevent initiation of illicit and nonmedical drug use among adolescents and young adults was inconsistent and imprecise, with some interventions associated with reduction in use and others associated with no benefit or increased use. Health, social, and legal outcomes were sparsely reported, and few showed improvements.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2020.1432

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Universal interventions were not effective to prevent illicit substance use in the general adolescent and young adult population, or to prevent common mental disorders in humanitarian settings.

    “As noted above, universal interventions were not effective to prevent illicit substance use in the general adolescent and young adult population 154 , or to prevent common mental disorders in humanitarian settings 120”
  • Mainstreaming universal approaches to reduce cannabis abuse holds only theoretical foundation, because these approaches are not empirically effective in children, adolescents and young adults.

    “Furthermore, mainstreaming universal approaches to reduce cannabis abuse holds only theoretical foundation, because these approaches are not empirically effective in children, adolescents and young adults 154”
  • A recent meta-analysis by the US Preventive Service Task Force found no evidence to favour selective (as well as population-level/universal) behavioural counselling to prevent illicit and non-medical drug use among adolescents and young adults.

    “a recent meta-analysis by the US Preventive Service Task Force found no evidence to favour selective (as well as population-level/universal) behavioural counselling 154”
  • There is a lack of evidence to favour several preventive interventions.

    “The lack of evidence to favour several preventive interventions 113,115,154,156 may indicate that a one-size-fits-all approach is not effective and may obfuscate the efficacy for specific subgroups of individuals.”
  • The lack of evidence to favour several preventive interventions may indicate that a one-size-fits-all approach is not effective.

    “The lack of evidence to favour several preventive interventions 113,115,154,156 may indicate that a one-size-fits-all approach is not effective and may obfuscate the efficacy for specific subgroups of individuals.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O’Connor, E., Thomas, R., Senger, C. A., Perdue, L., Robalino, S., & Patnode, C.
Affiliations
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
O’Connor, Elizabeth
Venue
JAMA
Published
2020-05-26
Volume
323
Issue
20
Pages
2067
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W3028859518
Cited by
32
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2
FWCI
0.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Kaiser Permanente
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Youth, Drugs, and Violence
Keywords
non-medical drug use, cannabis use, adolescents, young adults, children, harm reduction, substance use initiation, USPSTF recommendations, family functioning, arrests, psychiatric symptoms, academic performance, school-based prevention
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Alcohol Drinking, Behavior Therapy, Marijuana Abuse, Child, Clinical Trials as Topic, Counseling, Health Education, Humans, Primary Health Care, Illicit Drugs, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Substance-Related Disorders, Prescription Drugs, Young Adult, Tobacco Use

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review