Suppr超能文献

针对使用毒品的青少年的简短校内干预措施及行为结果

Brief school-based interventions and behavioural outcomes for substance-using adolescents.

作者信息

Carney Tara, Myers Bronwyn J, Louw Johann, Okwundu Charles I

机构信息

Alcohol and Drug Abuse Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Francie van Zyl Drive, Tygerberg, 7505, Parow, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa, 7505.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Feb 4(2):CD008969. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008969.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Adolescent substance use is a major problem, in and of itself and because it acts as a risk factor for other problem behaviours. As substance use during adolescence can lead to adverse and often long-term health and social consequences, it is important to intervene early on in order to prevent progression to more severe problems. Brief interventions have been shown to reduce problematic substance use among adolescents and are especially useful for individuals who have moderately risky patterns of substance use. Such interventions can be conducted in school settings. This review set out to evaluate the effectiveness of brief school-based interventions for adolescent substance use.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of brief school-based interventions on reducing substance use and other behavioural outcomes among adolescents compared to another intervention or assessment-only conditions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 10 electronic databases and six websites on evidence-based interventions, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews, from 1966 to March 2013. We also contacted authors and organisations to identify any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated the effects of brief school-based interventions for substance-using adolescents.The primary outcomes were reduction or cessation of substance use. The secondary outcomes were engagement in criminal activity and engagement in delinquent or problem behaviours related to substance use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used the standard methodological procedures outlined by The Cochrane Collaboration, including the GRADE approach for evaluating the quality of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Six studies involving 1139 participants were included in this review. Overall the quality of evidence was moderate in the information provision comparison, and low or very low in the assessment only comparison. Reasons for downgrading the quality included risk of bias of the included studies, imprecision and inconsistency. Our findings suggested that compared to information provision only, brief interventions (BIs) did not have a significant effect on any substance use (three studies, 732 participants, standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to 0.09) or delinquent-type behaviour outcomes among adolescents (two studies, 531 participants, SMD -0.26; 95% CI -0.54 to 0.02). When compared to assessment-only controls, BIs had some significant effects on substance use and delinquent-type or problem behaviours, but high levels of heterogeneity existed between studies and it was not always possible to pool the results. When the comparison was with assessment-only conditions, studies of individual interventions that measured BI effectiveness reported significantly reduced substance use in general and in two studies reduced frequency of alcohol use specifically. When the data were pooled, BIs reduced cannabis frequency (SMD -0.22; 95% CI -0.45 to -0.02) across three studies (n = 407). Cannabis quantity was also reduced by BIs in comparison to assessment only (SMD -60.27; 95% CI -66.59 to -53.95) in one study (n = 179). However, the evidence for studies that compared brief interventions to assessment-only conditions was generally of low quality. Brief interventions also had mixed effects on participants' delinquent or problem behaviours.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was limited quality evidence that brief school-based interventions were more effective in reducing substance use than the assessment-only condition, but were similar to information provision. There is some evidence for the effectiveness of BI in reducing adolescent substance use, particularly cannabis, when compared to assessment only. However, it is premature to make definitive statements about the effectiveness of brief school-based interventions for reducing adolescent substance use. Further high quality studies examining the relative effectiveness of BIs for substance use and other problem behaviours need to be conducted, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

摘要

背景

青少年物质使用本身就是一个重大问题,并且它还是其他问题行为的一个风险因素。由于青少年时期的物质使用会导致不良且往往是长期的健康和社会后果,因此尽早进行干预以防止问题发展到更严重的程度非常重要。简短干预已被证明可以减少青少年中有问题的物质使用,对于有中度风险物质使用模式的个体尤其有用。此类干预可以在学校环境中进行。本综述旨在评估基于学校的简短干预对青少年物质使用的有效性。

目的

评估与另一种干预或仅进行评估的情况相比,基于学校的简短干预在减少青少年物质使用和其他行为结果方面的有效性。

检索方法

我们检索了10个电子数据库和6个关于循证干预的网站,以及纳入研究和综述的参考文献列表,检索时间范围为1966年至2013年3月。我们还联系了作者和组织以识别任何其他研究。

入选标准

我们纳入了评估基于学校的简短干预对物质使用青少年影响的随机对照试验。主要结局是物质使用的减少或停止。次要结局是参与犯罪活动以及参与与物质使用相关的违法或问题行为。

数据收集与分析

我们使用了Cochrane协作网概述的标准方法程序,包括用于评估证据质量的GRADE方法。

主要结果

本综述纳入了6项涉及1139名参与者的研究。总体而言,在信息提供比较中证据质量为中等,在仅进行评估的比较中证据质量为低或非常低。证据质量降级的原因包括纳入研究的偏倚风险、不精确性和不一致性。我们的研究结果表明,与仅提供信息相比,简短干预(BIs)对青少年的任何物质使用(3项研究,732名参与者,标准化均值差(SMD)-0.06;95%置信区间(CI)-0.20至0.09)或违法类型行为结局没有显著影响(2项研究,531名参与者,SMD -0.26;95%CI -0.54至0.02)。与仅进行评估的对照组相比,简短干预对物质使用以及违法类型或问题行为有一些显著影响,但研究之间存在高度异质性,并非总是能够合并结果。当与仅进行评估的情况进行比较时,测量简短干预有效性的个体干预研究总体上报告物质使用显著减少,在两项研究中酒精使用频率尤其降低。当合并数据时,在三项研究(n = 407)中简短干预降低了大麻使用频率(SMD -0.22;95%CI -0.45至-0.02)。在一项研究(n = 179)中,与仅进行评估相比,简短干预还降低了大麻使用量(SMD -60.27;95%CI -66.59至-53.95)。然而,将简短干预与仅进行评估的情况进行比较的研究证据总体质量较低。简短干预对参与者的违法或问题行为也有不同的影响。

作者结论

质量证据有限,表明基于学校的简短干预在减少物质使用方面比仅进行评估的情况更有效,但与提供信息相似。与仅进行评估相比,有一些证据表明简短干预在减少青少年物质使用,特别是大麻使用方面有效。然而,就基于学校的简短干预对减少青少年物质使用的有效性做出明确陈述还为时过早。需要进行进一步的高质量研究,以检验简短干预对物质使用和其他问题行为的相对有效性,特别是在低收入和中等收入国家。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验