Dissemination of Project Towards No Drug Abuse (TND): findings from a survey of program adopters

The process of adoption of evidence-based tobacco use prevention programs in California schools

Although there are a number of research-validated substance use prevention programs available for wide-scale dissemination, very little is known about the factors that influence adoption of evidence-based prevention programs in schools. We tested a model of the mechanisms of program adoption in schools that was guided by diffusion of innovations and social ecological theories. Cross-sectional data were collected from a sample of school district and county office of education tobacco use prevention education coordinators throughout California. Structural equation modeling was used to test the effects of community and organizational variables on the adoption of prevention programs via school administrators' beliefs and the organization's receipt of funding for the program. Results supported the hypothesis that the process of adoption begins with forming beliefs about the program, leading to adoption through the receipt of funding. In addition, we found direct effects of various community- and organizational-level factors on beliefs, receipt of funding, and adoption. These results are likely to inform policies that affect school districts' use of evidence-based substance use prevention programming, which should ultimately lead to reductions in negative health outcomes among adolescents. Specifically, this study identifies various factors that could be targeted for improvement to enhance evidence-based program adoption. To our knowledge, this is the first study to empirically elucidate the process of adoption of evidence-based tobacco prevention programs in schools.

School-based programmes for preventing smoking

BACKGROUND

Helping young people to avoid starting smoking is a widely endorsed public health goal, and schools provide a route to communicate with nearly all young people. School-based interventions have been delivered for close to 40 years.

OBJECTIVES

The primary aim of this review was to determine whether school smoking interventions prevent youth from starting smoking. Our secondary objective was to determine which interventions were most effective. This included evaluating the effects of theoretical approaches; additional booster sessions; programme deliverers; gender effects; and multifocal interventions versus those focused solely on smoking.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Health Star, and Dissertation Abstracts for terms relating to school-based smoking cessation programmes. In addition, we screened the bibliographies of articles and ran individual MEDLINE searches for 133 authors who had undertaken randomised controlled trials in this area. The most recent searches were conducted in October 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where students, classes, schools, or school districts were randomised to intervention arm(s) versus a control group, and followed for at least six months. Participants had to be youth (aged 5 to 18). Interventions could be any curricula used in a school setting to deter tobacco use, and outcome measures could be never smoking, frequency of smoking, number of cigarettes smoked, or smoking indices.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Based on the type of outcome, we placed studies into three groups for analysis: Pure Prevention cohorts (Group 1), Change in Smoking Behaviour over time (Group 2) and Point Prevalence of Smoking (Group 3).

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-four studies involving 428,293 participants met the inclusion criteria. Some studies provided data for more than one group.Pure Prevention cohorts (Group 1) included 49 studies (N = 142,447). Pooled results at follow-up at one year or less found no overall effect of intervention curricula versus control (odds ratio (OR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.05). In a subgroup analysis, the combined social competence and social influences curricula (six RCTs) showed a statistically significant effect in preventing the onset of smoking (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87; seven arms); whereas significant effects were not detected in programmes involving information only (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 14.87; one study), social influences only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; 25 studies), or multimodal interventions (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.08; five studies). In contrast, pooled results at longest follow-up showed an overall significant effect favouring the intervention (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96). Subgroup analyses detected significant effects in programmes with social competence curricula (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.88), and the combined social competence and social influences curricula (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.87), but not in those programmes with information only, social influence only, and multimodal programmes.Change in Smoking Behaviour over time (Group 2) included 15 studies (N = 45,555). At one year or less there was a small but statistically significant effect favouring controls (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.04, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.06). For follow-up longer than one year there was a statistically nonsignificant effect (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.02).Twenty-five studies reported data on the Point Prevalence of Smoking (Group 3), though heterogeneity in this group was too high for data to be pooled.We were unable to analyse data for 49 studies (N = 152,544).Subgroup analyses (Pure Prevention cohorts only) demonstrated that at longest follow-up for all curricula combined, there was a significant effect favouring adult presenters (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.96). There were no differences between tobacco-only and multifocal interventions. For curricula with booster sessions there was a significant effect only for combined social competence and social influences interventions with follow-up of one year or less (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.96) and at longest follow-up (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.96). Limited data on gender differences suggested no overall effect, although one study found an effect of multimodal intervention at one year for male students. Sensitivity analyses for Pure Prevention cohorts and Change in Smoking Behaviour over time outcomes suggested that neither selection nor attrition bias affected the results.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Pure Prevention cohorts showed a significant effect at longest follow-up, with an average 12% reduction in starting smoking compared to the control groups. However, no overall effect was detected at one year or less. The combined social competence and social influences interventions showed a significant effect at one year and at longest follow-up. Studies that deployed a social influences programme showed no overall effect at any time point; multimodal interventions and those with an information-only approach were similarly ineffective.Studies reporting Change in Smoking Behaviour over time did not show an overall effect, but at an intervention level there were positive findings for social competence and combined social competence and social influences interventions.

One-year outcomes of a drug abuse prevention program for older teens and emerging adults: evaluating a motivational interviewing booster component

OBJECTIVE

The present study tested the efficacy of motivational interviewing-based booster sessions for Project Toward No Drug Abuse (TND), a 12-session school-based curriculum targeting youth at risk for drug abuse. In addition, generalization of effects to risky sexual behavior was assessed. The 1-year outcomes evaluation of the project is presented.

METHOD

A total of 24 schools were randomized to one of three conditions: standard care control (SCC), TND classroom program only (TND-only), and TND plus motivational interviewing booster (TND + MI). A total of 1186 participants completed baseline and 1-year follow-up surveys. Following the classroom program, youth in the TND + MI condition received up to 3 sessions of MI in person or by telephone. Effects were examined on 30-day cigarette, alcohol, marijuana, and hard drug use, as well as measures of risky sexual behavior (number of sex partners, condom use, having sex while using drugs or alcohol).

RESULTS

Collapsed across the 2 program conditions, results showed significant reductions in alcohol use, hard drug use, and cigarette smoking relative to controls. These effects held for an overall substance use index. The MI booster component failed to achieve significant incremental effects above and beyond the TND classroom program. No effects were found on risky sexual behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

While the program effects of previous studies were replicated, the study failed to demonstrate that an adequately implemented MI booster was of incremental value at 1-year follow-up.