Faggiano Fabrizio, Minozzi Silvia, Versino Elisabetta, Buscemi Daria
Department of TranslationalMedicine, Università del PiemonteOrientale, Via Solaroli 17,Novara, NO, 28100, Italy.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;2014(12):CD003020. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003020.pub3. Epub 2014 Dec 1.
Drug addiction is a chronic, relapsing disease. Primary interventions should aim to reduce first use or to prevent the transition from experimental use to addiction. School is the appropriate setting for preventive interventions.
To evaluate the effectiveness of universal school-based interventions in reducing drug use compared to usual curricular activities or no intervention.
We searched the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group's Trials Register (September 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2013, Issue 9), PubMed (1966 to September 2013), EMBASE (1988 to September 2013) and other databases. We also contacted researchers in the field and checked reference lists of articles.
Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating school-based interventions designed to prevent illicit drugs use.
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration.
We included 51 studies, with 127,146 participants. Programmes were mainly delivered in sixth and seventh grade pupils. Most of the trials were conducted in the USA. Social competence approach versus usual curricula or no intervention Marijuana use at < 12 months follow-up: the results favoured the social competence intervention (risk ratio (RR) 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.01, four studies, 9456 participants, moderate quality evidence). Seven studies assessed this outcome (no data for meta-analysis): two showed a positive significant effect of intervention, three showed a non-significant effect, one found a significant effect in favour of the control group and one found a trend in favour of the control group.Marijuana use at 12+ months: the results favoured the social competence intervention (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.00, one study, 2678 participants, high quality evidence). Seven studies assessed this outcome (no data for meta-analysis): two showed a significant positive effect of intervention, three showed a non-significant effect, one found a significant effect in favour of the control group and one a trend in favour of the control group.Hard drug use at < 12 months: we found no difference (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.40 to 1.18, one study, 2090 participants, moderate quality evidence). Two studies assessed this outcome (no data for meta-analysis): one showed comparable results for the intervention and control group; one found a statistically non-significant trend in favour of the social competence approach.Hard drug use at 12+ months: we found no difference (mean difference (MD) -0.01; 95% CI -0.06 to 0.04), one study, 1075 participants, high quality evidence). One study with no data for meta-analysis showed comparable results for the intervention and control group.Any drug use at < 12 months: the results favoured social competence interventions (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.51, two studies, 2512 participants, moderate quality evidence). One study with 1566 participants provided continuous data showing no difference (MD 0.02; 95% CI -0.05 to 0.09, moderate quality evidence). Social influence approach versus usual curricula or no intervention Marijuana use at < 12 months: we found a nearly statistically significant effect in favour of the social influence approach (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07, three studies, 10,716 participants, moderate quality evidence). One study with 764 participants provided continuous data showing results that favoured the social influence intervention (MD -0.26; 95% CI -0.48 to -0.04).Marijuana use at 12+ months: we found no difference (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.13, one study, 5862 participants, moderate quality evidence). One study with 764 participants provided continuous data and showed nearly statistically significant results in favour of the social influence intervention (MD -0.22; 95% CI -0.46 to 0.02). Of the four studies not providing data for meta-analysis a statistically significant protective effect was only found by one study.Hard drug use at 12+ months: one study not providing data for meta-analysis found a significant protective effect of the social influence approach.Any drug use: no studies assessed this outcome. Combined approach versus usual curricula or no intervention Marijuana use at < 12 months: there was a trend in favour of intervention (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.05, three studies, 8701 participants, moderate quality evidence). One study with 693 participants provided continuous data and showed no difference (MD -1.90; 95% CI -5.83 to 2.03).Marijuana use at 12+ months: the results favoured combined intervention (RR 0.83; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99, six studies, 26,910 participants, moderate quality evidence). One study with 690 participants provided continuous data and showed no difference (MD -0.80; 95% CI -4.39 to 2.79). Two studies not providing data for meta-analysis did not find a significant effect.Hard drug use at < 12 months: one study with 693 participants provided both dichotomous and continuous data and showed conflicting results: no difference for dichotomous outcomes (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14), but results in favour of the combined intervention for the continuous outcome (MD -3.10; 95% CI -5.90 to -0.30). The quality of evidence was high.Hard drug use at 12+ months: we found no difference (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.90, two studies, 1066 participants, high quality evidence). One study with 690 participants provided continuous data and showed no difference (MD 0.30; 95% CI -1.36 to 1.96). Two studies not providing data for meta-analysis showed a significant effect of treatment.Any drug use at < 12 months: the results favoured combined intervention (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.89, one study, 6362 participants).Only one study assessed the effect of a knowledge-focused intervention on drug use and found no effect. The types of comparisons and the programmes assessed in the other two groups of studies were very heterogeneous and difficult to synthesise.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: School programmes based on a combination of social competence and social influence approaches showed, on average, small but consistent protective effects in preventing drug use, even if some outcomes did not show statistical significance. Some programmes based on the social competence approach also showed protective effects for some outcomes.Since the effects of school-based programmes are small, they should form part of more comprehensive strategies for drug use prevention in order to achieve a population-level impact.
药物成瘾是一种慢性复发性疾病。初级干预措施应旨在减少首次使用药物或防止从尝试性使用转变为成瘾。学校是进行预防性干预的合适场所。
评估与常规课程活动或不进行干预相比,以学校为基础的普遍性干预措施在减少药物使用方面的有效性。
我们检索了Cochrane药物与酒精研究组试验注册库(2013年9月)、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(2013年第9期)、PubMed(1966年至2013年9月)、EMBASE(1988年至2013年9月)及其他数据库。我们还联系了该领域的研究人员并查阅了文章的参考文献列表。
评估旨在预防非法药物使用的以学校为基础的干预措施的随机对照试验(RCT)。
我们采用了Cochrane协作网期望的标准方法程序。
我们纳入了51项研究,涉及127,146名参与者。项目主要针对六年级和七年级学生开展。大多数试验在美国进行。社交能力方法与常规课程或不进行干预相比:在随访不到12个月时的大麻使用情况:结果支持社交能力干预(风险比(RR)0.90;95%置信区间(CI)0.81至1.01,4项研究,9456名参与者,中等质量证据)。7项研究评估了这一结果(无数据用于荟萃分析):2项研究显示干预有显著积极效果,3项研究显示无显著效果,1项研究发现对照组有显著效果,1项研究发现有支持对照组的趋势。在随访12个月及以上时的大麻使用情况:结果支持社交能力干预(RR 0.86;95%CI 0.74至1.00,1项研究,2678名参与者,高质量证据)。七项研究评估了这一结果(无数据用于荟萃分析):两项研究显示干预有显著积极效果,三项研究显示无显著效果,一项研究发现对照组有显著效果,一项研究发现有支持对照组的趋势。在随访不到12个月时的硬性毒品使用情况:我们未发现差异(RR 0.69;95%CI 0.40至1.18,1项研究,2090名参与者,中等质量证据)。两项研究评估了这一结果(无数据用于荟萃分析):一项研究显示干预组和对照组结果相当;一项研究发现支持社交能力方法的统计学上不显著趋势。在随访12个月及以上时的硬性毒品使用情况:我们未发现差异(平均差(MD)-0.01;95%CI -0.06至0.0),1项研究,1075名参与者,高质量证据)。一项无数据用于荟萃分析的研究显示干预组和对照组结果相当。在随访不到12个月时的任何药物使用情况:结果支持社交能力干预(RR 0.27;95%CI 0.14至0.51,2项研究,2512名参与者,中等质量证据)。一项有1566名参与者的研究提供了连续数据,显示无差异(MD 0.02;95%CI -0.05至0.09,中等质量证据)。社会影响方法与常规课程或不进行干预相比:在随访不到12个月时的大麻使用情况:我们发现支持社会影响方法的结果接近统计学显著性(RR 0.88;95%CI 0.72至1.07,3项研究,10,716名参与者,中等质量证据)。一项有764名参与者的研究提供了连续数据,显示结果支持社会影响干预(MD -0.26;95%CI -0.48至-0.04)。在随访12个月及以上时的大麻使用情况:我们未发现差异(RR 0.95;95%CI 0.81至1.13,1项研究,5862名参与者,中等质量证据)。一项有764名参与者的研究提供了连续数据,显示支持社会影响干预的结果接近统计学显著性(MD -0.22;95%CI -0.46至0.02)。在四项未提供数据用于荟萃分析的研究中,只有一项研究发现有统计学显著的保护作用。在随访12个月及以上时的硬性毒品使用情况:一项未提供数据用于荟萃分析的研究发现社会影响方法有显著保护作用。任何药物使用情况:无研究评估这一结果。综合方法与常规课程或不进行干预相比:在随访不到12个月时的大麻使用情况:有支持干预的趋势(RR 0.79;95%CI 0.59至1.05,3项研究,8701名参与者,中等质量证据)。一项有693名参与者的研究提供了连续数据,显示无差异(MD -1.90;95%CI -5.83至2.03)。在随访12个月及以上时的大麻使用情况:结果支持综合干预(RR 0.83;95%CI 0.69至0.99,6项研究,26,910名参与者,中等质量证据)。一项有690名参与者的研究提供了连续数据,显示无差异(MD -0.80;95%CI -4.39至2.79)。两项未提供数据用于荟萃分析的研究未发现显著效果。在随访不到12个月时的硬性毒品使用情况:一项有693名参与者的研究提供了二分法和连续数据,显示结果相互矛盾:二分法结果无差异(RR 0.85;95%CI 0.63至1.14),但连续结果支持综合干预(MD -3.10;95%CI -5.90至-0.30)。证据质量高。在随访12个月及以上时的硬性毒品使用情况:我们未发现差异(RR 0.86;95%CI =0.39至1.90,2项研究,1066名参与者,高质量证据)。一项有690名参与者的研究提供了连续数据,显示无差异(MD 0.30;95%CI -1.36至1.96)。两项未提供数据用于荟萃分析的研究显示治疗有显著效果。在随访不到12个月时的任何药物使用情况:结果支持综合干预(RR 0.76;95%CI 0.64至0.89,1项研究,6362名参与者)。只有一项研究评估了以知识为重点的干预措施对药物使用的影响,未发现效果。其他两组研究中评估的比较类型和项目非常异质,难以综合。
基于社交能力和社会影响方法相结合的学校项目平均而言,在预防药物使用方面显示出虽小但持续的保护作用,即使有些结果未显示出统计学显著性。一些基于社交能力方法的项目在某些结果上也显示出保护作用。由于以学校为基础的项目效果较小,它们应成为更全面的药物使用预防策略的一部分,以实现对人群层面的影响。