Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the long-term effects of universal preventive interventions on methamphetamine use by adolescents in the general population during their late high school years. DESIGN: Two randomized, controlled prevention trials. SETTING: Public schools in the Midwest from 1993 to 2004. PARTICIPANTS: Study 1 began with 667 sixth grade students from 33 rural public schools; the follow-up included 457 students. Study 2 began with 679 seventh grade students from 36 rural public schools; the follow-up assessment included 597 students. INTERVENTIONS: In study 1, schools were assigned to the Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP), Preparing for the Drug Free Years, or a control condition. In study 2, schools were assigned to a revised ISFP (SFP 10-14) plus Life Skills Training (SPF 10-14 + LST), LST alone, or a control condition. RESULTS: Self-reports of lifetime and past-year methamphetamine use were collected at 6(1/2) years past baseline (study 1) and at 4(1/2) and 5(1/2) years past baseline (study 2). In study 1, the ISFP past-year rate was 0.0% compared with 3.2% in the control condition (P = .04). In study 2, SFP 10-14 + LST showed significant effects on lifetime and past-year use at the 4(1/2) year follow-up (eg, 0.5% lifetime use in the intervention condition vs 5.2% in the control condition, P = .006); both SFP 10-14 + LST and LST alone had significant lifetime use effects at the 5(1/2) year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Brief universal interventions have potential for public health impact by reducing methamphetamine use among adolescents.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Spoth et al. (2006) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: