CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 265Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesYouth, Drugs, and ViolenceSchool Health and Nursing Education

School-based prevention for illicit drugs' use

Open access
Faggiano, Fabrizio, Vigna-Taglianti, Federica, Versino, Elisabetta, Zambon, Alessio, Borraccino, Alberto, Lemma, Patrizia·2005·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003020.pub2
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Drug addiction is a chronic, relapsing disease. Primary interventions should be aimed to reduce first use, or prevent the transition from experimental use to addiction. School is the appropriate setting for preventive interventions. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of school-based interventions in improving knowledge, developing skills, promoting change, and preventing or reducing drug use versus usual curricular activities or a different school-based intervention . SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE , EMBASE, ERIC, PSYCHINFO, Cochrane Library, ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Drug and Alcohol Group Register, updated to February 2004, were searched. Bibliography of papers was checked and personal contacts were made to identify other relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs, CCTs or Controlled Prospective Studies (CPS) evaluating school-based interventions designed to prevent substance use. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were selected and extracted independently by two reviewers. Quality was assessed with the CDAG checklist. Interventions were classified as skills, affective, knowledge-focused and other characteristics were also studied (teaching, follow-up implementation, context activation). MAIN RESULTS: 32 studies (29 RCTs and 3 CPSs) were included. 28 were conducted in the USA; most were focused on 6th-7th grade students, and based on post-test assessment. RCTs: (1) Knowledge vs usual curricula: Knowledge focused programs improve drug knowledge (SMD=0.91; 95% CI: 0.42, 1.39).(2) Skills vs usual curricula: Skills based interventions increase drug knowledge (WMD=2.60; 95% CI: 1.17-4.03), decision making skills (SMD=0.78; CI95%: 0.46-1.09), self-esteem (SMD=0.22; CI95%: 0.03-0.40), peer pressure resistance (RR=2.05; CI95%: 1.24-3.42), drug use (RR=0.81; CI95%: 0.64, 1.02), marijuana use (RR=0.82; CI95%: 0.73, 0.92) and hard drug use (RR=0.45; CI95%: 0.24-0.85). (3) Skills vs knowledge: No differences are evident.(4) Skills vs affective: Skills-based interventions are only better than affective ones in self-efficacy (WMD=1.90; CI95%: 0.25, 3.55). (5) Affective vs usual curricula: Affective interventions improve drug knowledge (SMD=1.88; CI95%: 1.27, 2.50) and decision making skills (SMD=1.35; CI95%: 0.79, 1.9). (6) Affective vs knowledge: Affective interventions improve drug knowledge (SMD=0.60; CI95%: 0.18,1.03), and decision making skills (SMD=1.22; CI95%: 0.33, 2.12). Results from CPSs: No statistically significant results emerge from CPSs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Skills based programs appear to be effective in deterring early-stage drug use. The replication of results with well designed, long term randomised trials, and the evaluation of single components of intervention (peer, parents, booster sessions) are the priorities for research. All new studies should control for cluster effect.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd003020.pub2

Cites

144 of 144 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

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

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Faggiano, F., Vigna-Taglianti, F., Versino, E., Zambon, A., Borraccino, A., & Lemma, P.
Affiliations
  • Università degli Studi del Piemonte Orientale “Amedeo Avogadro” (IT)
  • University of Turin (IT)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Published
2005-04-20
Issue
2
Pages
CD003020-CD003020
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd003020.pub2
OpenAlex
W2140955890
Cited by
265
References
144
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 20
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2014-12-01)
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Institutional Research Information System University of Turin (University of Turin) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Youth, Drugs, and Violence
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
Keywords
school-based prevention, substance use prevention, adolescents, medication knowledge, decision-making skills, self-esteem, cannabis use, hard drug use, intervention effectiveness, primary prevention, curriculum-based intervention, skills-based intervention, affective interventions, knowledge-based interventions, relapse prevention, secondary prevention, tertiary prevention
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Humans, School Health Services, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic, Substance-Related Disorders

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