Peer acceleration: effects of a social network tailored substance abuse prevention program among high‐risk adolescents

Valente, Thomas W.; Ritt-Olson, Anamara; Stacy, Alan W.; Unger, Jennifer B.; Okamoto, Janet; Sussman, Steve

doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.01992.x

Cited by 220 publications

(199 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

191

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In eight studies 19, 20, 33, 34, 35, 37, 39, 52, peers of a similar age were nominated by their classmates, while in four studies, older‐age peers were selected by staff or researchers 32, 36, 51, 53. In other programmes, PLs either volunteered 31, 36, 38 or the age or method of selection was unclear.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among those interventions that were the most effective 19, 20, 31, 54, however, there was no clear pattern of factors associated with impact, such as shared intervention domains, duration of intervention or underlying theory. In addition, no clear message emerged regarding whether peers, teachers or professionals were more effective at instigating behaviour change.…”

Section: Implications and Other Evidencementioning

confidence: 98%

“…Where this was not reported, odds ratios (ORs) were calculated in Stata (version 13.1) using the raw data 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36. For continuous outcomes, the standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated and converted to a log OR 20, 37, 38, 39 using standard methods 40 (InlogOR = d(π/sqrt)3). To overcome unit of analysis error where data were presented separately by gender 35, 37, or where there were multiple experimental arms 39, groups were merged to enable synthesis [Ref 41, section 7.7.3.8].…”

Section: Data Extraction and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of these studies 20 involved identification of PLs via social network nominations, and the use of teams alongside small group discussion and role‐play with the peer leader. Data demonstrated that substance use was higher among participants with existing networks of substance‐using peers (b = 0.17, 0.08–0.26, P < 0.01), while substance use was reduced mainly for those students who nominated students who reported low levels of substance use.…”

Section: Adverse Effects Of Peer‐led Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, peer‐based programmes have been employed to target substance use, sexual risk behaviour, HIV prevention and psychosocial wellbeing among young people 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and there is promising evidence from existing intervention models 19, 22, 26. Earlier systematic reviews suggested that there was evidence that peer interventions could change behaviour, as well as improve knowledge 18, 27, 28.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Peer‐led interventions to prevent tobacco, alcohol and/or drug use among young people aged 11–21 years: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and AimsPeer‐led interventions may offer a beneficial approach in preventing substance use, but their impact has not yet been quantified. We conducted a systematic review to investigate and quantify the effect of peer‐led interventions that sought to prevent tobacco, alcohol and/or drug use among young people aged 11–21 years.MethodsMedline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to July 2015 without language restriction. We included randomized controlled trials only. Screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and data from eligible studies were pooled in a random effects meta‐analysis.ResultsWe identified 17 eligible studies, approximately half of which were school‐based studies targeting tobacco use among adolescents. Ten studies targeting tobacco use could be pooled, representing 13 706 young people in 220 schools. Meta‐analysis demonstrated that the odds of smoking were lower among those receiving the peer‐led intervention compared with control [odds ratio (OR) = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.62–0.99, P = 0.040]. There was evidence of heterogeneity (I 2 = 41%, χ2 15.17, P = 0.086). Pooling of six studies representing 1699 individuals in 66 schools demonstrated that peer‐led interventions were also associated with benefit in relation to alcohol use (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.65–0.99, P = 0.036), while three studies (n = 976 students in 38 schools) suggested an association with lower odds of cannabis use (OR = 0.70, 0.50–0.97, P = 0.034). No studies were found that targeted other illicit drug use.ConclusionsPeer interventions may be effective in preventing tobacco, alcohol and possibly cannabis use among adolescents, although the evidence base is limited overall, and is characterized mainly by small studies of low quality.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Implications and Other Evidencementioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Data Extraction and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Adverse Effects Of Peer‐led Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Peer‐led interventions to prevent tobacco, alcohol and/or drug use among young people aged 11–21 years: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

School-based programmes for preventing smoking

Thomas

McLellan

Perera

2013

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

320

255

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mentoring adolescents to prevent drug and alcohol use

Lorenzetti

Spragins

2011

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All four RCTs were in the US, and included "deprived" and mostly minority adolescents. Participants were young (in two studies age 12, and in two others 9-16). All students at baseline were non-users of alcohol and drugs. Two RCTs found mentoring reduced the rate of initiation of alcohol, and one of drug usage. The ability of the interventions to be effective was limited by the low rates of commencing alcohol and drug use during the intervention period in two studies (the use of marijuana in one study increased to 1% in the experimental and to 1.6% in the control group, and in another study drug usage rose to 6% in the experimental and 11% in the control group). However, in a third study there was scope for the intervention to have an effect as alcohol use rose to 19% in the experimental and 27% in the control group. The studies assessed structured programmes and not informal mentors.

show abstract

Peer acceleration: effects of a social network tailored substance abuse prevention program among high‐risk adolescents

Cited by 220 publications

References 52 publications

Peer‐led interventions to prevent tobacco, alcohol and/or drug use among young people aged 11–21 years: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Peer‐led interventions to prevent tobacco, alcohol and/or drug use among young people aged 11–21 years: a systematic review and meta‐analysis

School-based programmes for preventing smoking

Mentoring adolescents to prevent drug and alcohol use

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About