The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Review of 127 Drug Abuse Prevention Program Evaluations
Abstract
This review examines outcome evaluations of 127 primary drug abuse prevention programs issued between 1968 and 1977. Included were studies which measured program effects on drug use, intentions to use drugs, and/or attitudes toward drug use. The studies were gathered through an extended search, and they may represent the largest collection of prevention program outcome evaluations currently available. As part of the review process, detailed summaries of all studies were prepared. Each study was described along 70 programming and research dimensions. The descriptive data were subjected to various cross-tabular and correlational analyses. This article describes characteristics of the prevention programs, program settings and target populations, research methods, and the evaluation reports themselves. Trends over time in programming and research practices are also identified. The most important findings concern program effectiveness. Overall, the 127 programs produced only minor effects on drug use behaviors and attitudes. However, in a substudy of the ten best-researched, highest-intensity service programs, effectiveness was judged to be more substantial. The best of the available evaluations are tentatively encouraging about the efficacy of “new generation” prevention programs. The review concludes with recommendations for prevention policy making, program planning, and program evaluation.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A meta-analysis of smoking prevention programs after adjustment for errors in the unit of analysis
Rooney, B. L., & Murray, D. M. (1996) · Health Education Quarterly · doi:10.1177/109019819602300104 · Cited by 254
Metadata
- Authors
- Schaps, E., DiBartolo, R., Moskowitz, J., Palley, C. S., & Churgin, S.
- Venue
- Journal of Drug Issues
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1981-01
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 17-43
- ISSN
- 0022-0426 (ISSN-L)
- 1945-1369
- OpenAlex
- W2339925197
- Cited by
- 260
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.