Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Fall;23 Suppl(Suppl):29-36.
doi: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2007.00121.x.

Examining the effects of school-based drug prevention programs on drug use in rural settings: methodology and initial findings

C Hendricks Brown  1 , Jing Guo, L Terri Singer, Katheryne Downes, Joseph M Brinales
Affiliations

Examining the effects of school-based drug prevention programs on drug use in rural settings: methodology and initial findings

C Hendricks Brown et al. J Rural Health. 2007 Fall.

Abstract

Context: Although there have been substantial advances in knowledge about drug prevention over the last decade, the majority of school-based drug prevention studies have been conducted in urban settings. There is little knowledge about the effectiveness of such programs when they are implemented in rural populations.

Purpose: To examine the prevention effects of school-based drug prevention programs implemented in rural populations.

Methods: Mixed model or 2-level meta-analysis of trials based on school-based drug prevention programs that included rural populations. A total of 182 trials were coded for urbanicity of schools and 22 separate trials were selected for the analysis conducted in this paper. A total of 435 distinct analyses were examined from these 22 trials.

Findings: We found a modest but consistent beneficial impact of drug prevention programs on later use as well as level of use. Regarding later drug use, the largest impact was on those who were not using at baseline and those exposed to an interactive program; the results were much larger for marijuana and other drugs compared to alcohol or tobacco, while inhalant use was less affected than other drug categories. Regarding level of use, the impact was greatest 6 months after the trial ended, with diminishing effects thereafter.

Conclusions: Evidence exists for a small but systematic beneficial effect of drug prevention programs in rural settings. It is likely that these programs have produced a mild reduction in new use of substances but have had little impact on those already using substances.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Tobler NS, Roona MR, Ochshorn P, Marshall DG, Streke AV, Stackpole KM. School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 meta-analysis. Journal of Primary Prevention. 2000 Sum;20(4):275–336.
    1. Hawkins JD, Arthur MW, Olson JJ. Community interventions to reduce risks and enhance protection against antisocial behavior. In: Stoff DW, Breiling J, Masers JD, editors. Handbook of antisocial behaviors. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc; 1998. pp. 365–374.
    1. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co; 2002.
    1. Shadish WR, Heinsman DT. Experiments versus quasi-experiments: do they yield the same answer? NIDA Research Monograph. 1997;170:147–164. - PubMed
    1. Brown CH, Berndt D, Brinales JM, Zong X, Bhagwat D. Evaluating the evidence of effectiveness for preventive interventions: Using a registry system to influence policy through science. Addictive Behaviors. 2000 Nov–Dec;25(6):955–964. - PubMed

Publication types