Evaluation of a drug abuse prevention program: A field experiment

LoSciuto, Leonard; Ausetts, Mary Ann

doi:10.1016/0306-4603(88)90040-8

Cited by 21 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Eleven programmes involved two domains: two ethos/environment plus curriculum programmes (It's Your Decision 84 and Primary School Drug Education 85 ). Nine were curriculum plus parents and community programmes (Kylie Mole, [86][87][88] Keep a Clear Mind, 89,90 Hansen A, 91 Biglan A, 92 PRIDE 93 and the Midwestern Prevention Project (also referred to as STAR). [94][95][96] There were also two programmes which appeared from the reviews to cover all three domains -ethos/ environment, parents/community and curriculum (Seattle Social Development Project 58,59 ) -but on appraisal of the papers reporting results of the primary studies, for inclusion in the review of studies of the health promoting school, this was found not to be the case.…”

Section: Programme Domainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health promoting schools and health promotion in schools: two systematic reviews.

Lister-Sharp¹,

Chapman²,

Stewart‐Brown³

et al. 1999

Health Technology Assessment

277

206

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he overall aim of the NHS R&D Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is to ensure that high-quality research information on the costs, effectiveness and broader impact of health technologies is produced in the most efficient way for those who use, manage and work in the NHS. Research is undertaken in those areas where the evidence will lead to the greatest benefits to patients, either through improved patient outcomes or the most efficient use of NHS resources.The Standing Group on Health Technology advises on national priorities for health technology assessment. Six advisory panels assist the Standing Group in identifying and prioritising projects. These priorities are then considered by the HTA Commissioning Board supported by the National Coordinating Centre for HTA (NCCHTA).This report is one of a series covering acute care, diagnostics and imaging, methodology, pharmaceuticals, population screening, and primary and community care. It was identified as a priority by the Primary and Community Care Panel and funded as project number 95/37/01.The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Standing Group, the Commissioning Board, the Panel members or the Department of Health. The editors wish to emphasise that funding and publication of this research by the NHS should not be taken as implicit support for the recommendations for policy contained herein. In particular, policy options in the area of screening will be considered by the National Screening Committee. This Committee, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer, will take into account the views expressed here, further available evidence and other relevant considerations.Reviews in Health Technology Assessment are termed 'systematic' when the account of the search, appraisal and synthesis methods (to minimise biases and random errors) would, in theory, permit the replication of the review by others.

show abstract

Section: Programme Domainsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health promoting schools and health promotion in schools: two systematic reviews.

Lister-Sharp¹,

Chapman²,

Stewart‐Brown³

et al. 1999

Health Technology Assessment

277

206

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many curriculum-based prevention programs have been evaluated, and reports of this research are found in the literature. The PRIDE program in Philadelphia (LoSciuto & Ausetts, 1988), the CLASP project of the Stanford Heart Disease Prevention Program (McAlister, Perry, & Maccoby, 1979), and "Here's Looking at You, Two," begun in Seattle and adapted by a Pennsylvania consortium of state organizations (Green & Kelley, 1989), are examples of programs found to be successful in substance abuse prevention. In most cases the effectiveness of such programs is limited to increased knowledge and awareness among students.…”

Section: School Counselorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Substance Abuse Prevention and Intervention: An Expanded Perspective for Counselors

Schmidt

1994

Jour of Counseling & Develop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Results showed that those receiving the program displayed greater drug knowledge and improved problem solving skills relative to untreated controls. Losciuto and Ausetts (1988) evaluated the effectiveness of Project PRIDE, a schoolbased affective education program offered in urban Philadelphia to a high-risk population of children in grades 5 through 7. Twelve weekly student sessions targeted the development of knowledge and attitudes regarding drugs, self-awareness, interpersonal relationships, and life skills (decision-making, problem-solving, and communication skills).…”

Section: Prevention Of Substance Abuse In African-american Childrenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Drug abuse prevention for high-risk African American children and their families: A review and model program

Hasselt

Hersen

Null

et al. 1993

Addictive Behaviors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we are specifically concerned with the familial and socioeconomic factors that contribute to the exceedingly high prevalence rates ofdrug abuse in African-American children. In addition to detailing the impact of drug abuse in African-American children and their families, we consider how this critical health problem can be prevented using existing knowledge and strategies known to mental health professionals. A model program entitled Project for a Substance Abuse-Free Environment (SAFE) is outlined. Its objectives are to implement: (a) a broad-spectrum family intervention to empower disadvantaged and high-risk families in their communities; (b) a competency-based skills intervention to increase resilience and decrease drug use and other maladaptive behaviors in at-risk children; (c) alternative activities that will promote self-efficacy, achievement, and self-esteem; (d) a culturally-relevant evaluation plan that includes both formative (process) and summative (outcome) evaluation; (e) a comprehensive approach for assessingproject impact; (e) systematic procedures for enhancing the maintenance and generalization of gains in participating children and families.

show abstract

Evaluation of a drug abuse prevention program: A field experiment

Cited by 21 publications

References 6 publications

Health promoting schools and health promotion in schools: two systematic reviews.

Health promoting schools and health promotion in schools: two systematic reviews.

Substance Abuse Prevention and Intervention: An Expanded Perspective for Counselors

Drug abuse prevention for high-risk African American children and their families: A review and model program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About