Primary Substance Use Prevention Programs for Children and Youth: A Systematic Review
Abstract
CONTEXT: An updated synthesis of research on substance abuse prevention programs can promote enhanced uptake of programs with proven effectiveness, particularly when paired with information relevant to practitioners and policy makers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the strength of the scientific evidence for psychoactive substance abuse prevention programs for school-aged children and youth. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was conducted of studies published up until March 31, 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Articles on substance abuse prevention programs for school-aged children and youth were independently screened and included if they met eligibility criteria: (1) the program was designed for a general population of children and youth (ie, not designed for particular target groups), (2) the program was delivered to a general population, (3) the program only targeted children and youth, and (4) the study included a control group. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality and extracted outcome data. RESULTS: Ninety studies met eligibility criteria, representing 16 programs. Programs evaluated with the largest combined sample sizes were Drug Abuse Resistance Education, Project Adolescent Learning Experiences Resistance Training, Life Skills Training (LST), the Adolescent Alcohol Prevention Trial, and Project Choice. LIMITATIONS: Given the heterogeneity of outcomes measured in the included studies, it was not possible to conduct a statistical meta-analysis of program effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The most research has been conducted on the LST program. However, as with other programs included in this review, studies of LST effectiveness varied in quality. With this review, we provide an updated summary of evidence for primary prevention program effectiveness.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
This review is the first international review to comprehensively bring together economic evaluations of preventive interventions specifically for opioid misuse, cannabis and illicit drug use.
“This review is the first international review to comprehensively bring together economic evaluations of preventive interventions specifically for opioid misuse, cannabis and illicit drug use.”
From A systematic review of economic evaluations for opioid misuse, cannabis and illicit drug use prevention (2023) · cites this paper as [16]
Cites
Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies
Deeks, J., Dinnes, J., D'Amico, R., Sowden, A., Sakarovitch, C., Song, F., Petticrew, M., & Altman, D. (2003) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta7270 · Cited by 2,907 · see citing works
Early-onset drug use and risk for drug dependence problems
Chen, C.-Y., Storr, C. L., & Anthony, J. C. (2009) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2008.10.021 · Cited by 466 · see citing works
Faggiano, F., Vigna-Taglianti, F., Burkhart, G., Bohrn, K., Cuomo, L., Gregori, D., Panella, M., Scatigna, M., Siliquini, R., Varona, L., et al. (2010) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.11.018 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W., Diaz, T., & Ifill-Williams, M. (2001) · Psychology of Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1037/0893-164x.15.4.360 · Cited by 190 · see citing works
Strøm, H. K., Adolfsen, F., Fossum, S., Kaiser, S., & Martinussen, M. (2014) · Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy · doi:10.1186/1747-597x-9-48 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Luna-Adame, M., Carrasco-Gimenez, T. J., & Rueda-Garcia, M. D. M. (2013) · Health Education Research · doi:10.1093/her/cyt061 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Turuba, R., Amarasekera, A., Howard, A. M., Brockmann, V., Tallon, C., Irving, S., Mathias, S., Henderson, J., Marchand, K., & Barbic, S. (2022) · Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy · doi:10.1186/s13011-022-00456-4 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Faller, J., Le, L. K.-D., Chatterton, M. L., Perez, J. K., Chiotelis, O., Tran, H. N. Q., Sultana, M., Hall, N., Lee, Y. Y., Chapman, C., et al. (2023) · BJPsych Open · doi:10.1192/bjo.2023.515 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tremblay, M., Baydala, L., Khan, M., Currie, C., Morley, K., Burkholder, C., Davidson, R., & Stillar, A.
- Affiliations
- Departments of Educational Psychology and
- University of Alberta (CA)
- University of Lethbridge (CA)
- Venue
- Pediatrics
- Publisher
- American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
- Published
- 2020-09-01
- Volume
- 146
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-4275
- OpenAlex
- W3048345507
- Cited by
- 116
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 8
- FWCI
- 2.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Demography › Youth, Drugs, and Violence
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
- Keywords
- substance use prevention, primary prevention, school-aged children, adolescents, psychoactive substances, program effectiveness, Drug Abuse Resistance Education, Project ALERT, life skills training, project choice, alcohol prevention, program uptake
- MeSH terms
- Adolescent, Child, Humans, Primary Prevention, Program Evaluation, 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