Three approaches to alcohol education.

Goodstadt, Michael S.; Sheppard, Margaret A.

doi:10.15288/jsa.1983.44.362

Cited by 42 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Twenty‐four interventions with only a short‐term follow‐up reported some non‐significant outcomes (Williams et al . 1968; Goodstadt & Sheppard 1983; Botvin et al. 1984; Cook et al .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longer‐term primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people: a systematic review

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

(1) Research into important outcome variables needs to be undertaken; (2) the methodology of evaluations needs to be improved; (3) the SFP needs to be evaluated on a larger scale and in different settings; (4) culturally focused interventions require further development and rigorous evaluation; and (5) an international register of alcohol and drug misuse prevention interventions should be established and criteria agreed for rating prevention interventions in terms of safety, efficacy and effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longer‐term primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people: a systematic review

et al. 2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Five [17][18][19][20][21] of 11 studies that evaluated alcohol-specific interventions did not find any statistically significant effects, whereas six studies found significant beneficial effects of the interventions. [22][23][24][25][26][27] Similarly, 25 of the 39 trials that evaluated generic programmes did not find significant positive effects, whereas the remaining 14 studies 28-41 reported significantly beneficial effects of the programmes with regards to some of the measures of alcohol use.…”

Section: Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universal alcohol misuse prevention programmes for children and adolescents: Cochrane systematic reviews

Foxcroft

Tsertsvadze

2012

Perspect Public Health

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In these Cochrane reviews, some school, family or multi-component prevention programmes were shown to be effective in reducing alcohol misuse in youths. However, these results warrant a cautious interpretation, since bias and/or contextual factors may have affected the trial results. Further research should replicate the most promising studies identified in these reviews and pay particular attention to content and context factors through rigorous evaluation.

show abstract

“…Many school-based educational prevention programs have been found to increase knowledge about the negative consequences of substance abuse, but most programs have very little effect on actual drinking and drug use behaviors (Bangert-Drowns, 1988;Bruvold, 1990;Gersick, Grady, & Snow, 1988;Goodstadt & Sheppard, 1983;Green & Kelley, 1989;Kim, McLeod, & Shantzis, 1993;Kinder, Pape, & Walfish, 1980;Moskowitz, 1989;Tobler, 1986). Researchers who do find immediate program effects often see that they are short-lived, and are not maintained at follow-ups (Ellickson & Bell, 1990;Kim, McLeod, & Palmgron, 1989).…”

Section: Relevant Literature Related To Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Project C.A.R.E. substance abuse prevention program for high-risk youth: A longitudinal evaluation of program effectiveness

Hostetler¹,

Fisher²

1997

J. Community Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes and evaluates Project C.A.R.E., a substance abuse prevention program for three cohorts of at‐risk fourth graders and their families. Project C.A.R.E. worked intensively with students and their families to increase resiliency factors and decrease risk factors through school, family, and extracurricular activities. The research design was experimental. Project objectives were to decrease substance use, negative behaviors, intent to use substances, school suspensions, and absences; and to increase alternative activities, family communication, academic grades, and consistency of family behavior control and rules. A few positive program effects were found. At posttest, more control students' grades needed improvement, and more program students participated in community activities. Several variables showed differential change over time which favored the program group. Compared to control students, program students increased participation in alternative activities from pretest to posttest and did not increase their school suspensions as much. At the one year follow‐up, control students were more willing to use substances than were program students. The program appeared to have the most impact with the third cohort of students and with Black students. Program students with low participation generally had the worst outcomes, often worse than the control students. It was suggested that more research should be done examining differential effectiveness, especially racial and program participation differences, as they could have a profound impact on program development and implementation. © 1997 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

show abstract

Three approaches to alcohol education.

Cited by 42 publications

References 14 publications

Longer‐term primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people: a systematic review

Longer‐term primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people: a systematic review

Universal alcohol misuse prevention programmes for children and adolescents: Cochrane systematic reviews

Project C.A.R.E. substance abuse prevention program for high-risk youth: A longitudinal evaluation of program effectiveness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About