Prevention of substance related problems effectiveness of family focused prevention l.jpg
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 33

Prevention of Substance-Related Problems: Effectiveness of Family-Focused Prevention PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 54 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Prevention of Substance-Related Problems: Effectiveness of Family-Focused Prevention. Richard Spoth Partnerships in Prevention Science Institute Iowa State University United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

Download Presentation

Prevention of Substance-Related Problems: Effectiveness of Family-Focused Prevention

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Prevention of substance related problems effectiveness of family focused prevention l.jpg

Prevention of Substance-Related Problems: Effectiveness of Family-Focused Prevention

Richard Spoth

Partnerships in Prevention Science Institute

Iowa State University

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

Technical Seminar on Drug Addiction Prevention and Treatment: From Research to Practice

December 17, 2008


1 advances in family focused prevention l.jpg

1. Advances in Family-focused Prevention

Positive outcomes from rigorous studies

  • Caregiver-child bonding

  • Child management

  • Social, emotional and cognitive competencies (e.g., problem solving, goal setting)

  • Substance use, delinquency, conduct problems

  • Mental health problems

See summaries in Spoth, R. (In press). Translation of family-focused prevention science into public health impact: Toward a translational impact paradigm. Current Directions in Psychological Science; Spoth, R., Greenberg, M. &Turrisi, R. (2008). Preventive interventions addressing underage drinking: State of the evidence and steps toward public health impact. Pediatrics, 121, 311-336.

.


Selected examples of prevention programs meeting rigorous outcome criteria l.jpg

Selected Examples ofPrevention ProgramsMeeting Rigorous Outcome Criteria

  • Raising Healthy Children

    [Catalano et al. (2003); Brown, Catalano, Fleming, Haggerty, & Abbott (2005); depts.washington.edu/sdrg]

  • Nurse-Family Partnership Program (NFP)

    [Olds et al. (1998); www.nursefamilypartnership.org]

  • The Incredible Years

    [Reid, Webster-Stratton, & Beauchaine (2002); Webster-Stratton & Taylor (2001); www.incredibleyears.com]

  • Triple P-Positive Parenting

    (Heinrichs et al. (2006); Sanders, Markie-Dadds, Tully, & Bor (2000); www.triplep.net ]

  • Family Matters

    [Bauman et al. (2000); Bauman et al. (2002); http://familymatters.sph.unc.edu/index.htm]

  • Families That Care: Guiding Good Choices

    [Park et al. (2000); Spoth et al. (2004); http://www.dsgonline.com/mpg]

See criteria in Spoth, R., Greenberg, M., & Turrisi, R. (2008). Preventive interventions addressing underage drinking: State of the evidence and steps toward public health impact. Pediatrics, 121, 311-336.


Slide4 l.jpg

2. Challenge of General PopulationIntervention Impact—Substance Initiation

U.S. Monitoring the Future Study, 2005—

among 8th-12th graders, lifetime use prevalence rates

  • Escalating rates of use from 8th-12th grades

  • Early initiation linked with misuse/high social, health, economic costs


Two windows of opportunity for intervention with general populations l.jpg

No Use

Substance

Initiation

Advanced Use

Intervene to

Reduce Probability

of Transition

Two Windows of Opportunity forIntervention with General Populations

See Spoth, Reyes, Redmond, & Shin (1999). Assessing a public health approach to delay onset and progression of adolescent substance use: Latent transition and log-linear analyses of longitudinal family preventive intervention outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 619-630.


Conditions for public health impact on substance use requires l.jpg

Sustained, quality EBPs

Conditions for PublicHealth Impact on Substance Use—Requires…

…a larger “piece” of evidence-based programs (EBPs) to delay two types of transition with general community populations

…sustained, quality implementation on a large scale

EBPs

Evaluated-

not effective

Not Evaluated

Rigorously demonstrated, long-term EBP impact is very rare (Foxcroft et al., 2003).


3 illustrations of evidence that universal family programs work l.jpg

3. Illustrations of EvidenceThat Universal Family Programs Work...

...with potential for public health impact.


Slide8 l.jpg

School/Community Implementers

assisted by University Outreach System

State University

Prevention Research Team and Extension Specialists

Intervention Implementation Model for Project Family Randomized Controlled Trial II (First generation partnership model)

See partnership model description in Spoth, R. (2007). Opportunities to meet challenges in rural prevention research: Findings from an evolving community-university partnership model. Journal of Rural Health, 23, 42-54.


Slide9 l.jpg

One Example―

Strengthening Families

Program: For Parents and Youth 10-14* (SFP 10-14)

  • Objectives

    • Enhance family protective factors (e.g., caregiver-child bonding)

    • Reduce family-based risk factors for child problem behaviors (e.g., ineffective discipline; low peer resistance)

  • Program Lengthweekly two-hour sessions

  • Program Formatsessions include one hour for separate parent and child training and one hour for family training

    *Formerly known as Iowa Strengthening Families Program (ISFP)


Sfp 10 14 content l.jpg

SFP 10-14 Content

  • Key program content for parents

    • Effective family management

    • Managing emotions/affective quality

  • Key program content for adolescents

    • Peer resistance skills

    • Pro-social attitudes

    • Coping with stress and strong emotions

  • Key program content for families

    • Problem-solving

    • Communication

  • Observers confirm consistency with protocol


Slide11 l.jpg

Project Family Trial II

Substance Initiation Results

Lifetime Drunkenness Through 6 Years Past Baseline:

Logistic Growth Curve

Source: Spoth, Redmond, Shin, & Azevedo (2004). Brief family intervention effects on adolescent substance initiation: School-level curvilinear growth curve analyses six years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 535-542.


Slide12 l.jpg

Project Family Trial II

Substance Initiation Results

Lifetime Marijuana Use Through 6 Years Past Baseline

Source: Spoth, Redmond, Shin, & Azevedo (2004). Brief family intervention effects on adolescent substance initiation: School-level curvilinear growth curve analyses six years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 535-542.


Slide13 l.jpg

Project Family Trial II

Substance Initiation Results

Average age at given prevalence levels

Prevalence Age

Rate Intervention Control

Lifetime Alcohol Use

without parental permission 40% 15.5 17.0*

Lifetime Drunkenness 35% 15.3 17.5*

Lifetime Cigarette Use 30% 15.7 17.9*

Lifetime Marijuana Use 10% 15.5 17.8

*p < .05 for test of group difference in time from baseline to point at which initiation levels reach the stated levels—approximately half of 12th grade levels—in control group.

Source: Spoth,  Redmond, Shin, & Azevedo. (2004). Brief family intervention effects on adolescent substance initiation: School-level curvilinear growth curve analyses six years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72, 535-542.


Project family trial ii wide ranging positive outcomes l.jpg

Project Family Trial II―Wide Ranging Positive Outcomes

Adolescents─Up to 6 Years Past Baseline

  • Improved parenting skills

  • Improved youth skills (e.g., peer resistance, social competencies)

  • Improved school engagement and grades

  • Decreased aggressive/destructive behaviors, conduct problems

  • Decreased mental health problems (e.g., depression)


Other long term effects of family program l.jpg

Other Long-termEffects of Family Program

  • Young Adults─10 Years Past Baseline

  • Significant effects on young adult drunkenness, cigarette use, illicit drug use, offending behavior, health-risky sexual behavior

  • Examples of practical significance

Sources: Spoth, R., Trudeau, L., Guyll, M., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. (2008). Universal intervention effects on substance use among young adults via slowed growth in adolescent substance initiation. Under review (Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology); Spoth, R., Trudeau, L., Shin, C., & Redmond, C. (August, 2008). Universal intervention effects on offending behaviors among young adults via reduction in growth of adolescent problem behaviors. Invited presentation at the annual conference of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.


Slide16 l.jpg

Countries in Which

SFP:10-14 Has Been Implemented to Date

Costa Rica

El Salvador

England

Greece

Italy

Nicaragua

Norway

Poland

Puerto Rico

Spain

Sweden

United States

US Virgin Islands

Wales


Slide17 l.jpg

Does the family

program work universally well?

Are observed initiation outcomestruly “universal”—do they benefit all participants comparably, regardless of initial risk status?


Conclusions from risk related outcome studies benefits to higher risk l.jpg

Conclusions fromRisk-Related Outcome Studies─Benefits to Higher-Risk

  • Comparable benefit across risk-related subgroups or higher-risk benefit (multiple studies)

  • Leveraging effect (lower risk benefit more) intuitively appealing but not empirically supported

  • Findings are from studies wherein successfully recruited and retained both higher-risk and lower-risk participants


Does the family program yield economic benefits l.jpg

Does the family programyield economic benefits?

(What are the economic benefits of universal intervention effects on substance initiation?)


Slide20 l.jpg

*Estimated $9.60 returned for each dollar invested

under actual study conditions.

Project Family Trial II

Benefit-Cost Analysis

Source: Spoth, Guyll, & Day (2002). Universal family-focused interventions in alcohol-use disorder prevention: Cost-effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of two interventions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 219-228.


Family plus school more effective than school alone l.jpg

Family plus school more effective than school alone?

  • Both family and school are primary socializing environments

  • Etiological research confirms powerful risk and protective factors originating in both

  • Prospect of intervention synergy—teaching similar skills in two settings

  • No prior randomized, controlled studies of this universal combination

SFP 10-14+LST

  • Capable Families and Youth (CaFaY) Trial


Slide22 l.jpg

CaFaY Meth Initiation Results at

4½ Years Past Baseline

Source: Spoth, R., Clair, S., Shin, C., & Redmond , C. (2006). Long-term effects of universal preventive interventions on methamphetamine use among adolescents. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 160, 876-882.


Slide23 l.jpg

When “combined” with school program, how well is it implemented—and working—under “real world” conditions?

When the multicomponent intervention is implemented by a community team(“real world conditions”) is the quality of intervention implementationsufficiently high?

Are the effects significantly better than “intervention as usual?”


Slide24 l.jpg

Third Generation Sustainability Partnership Design For PROSPER Randomized Controlled Trial

Local Community Teams

Prevention Coordinator Team

University/State-Level Team


Prosper community team activities l.jpg

PROSPERCommunity Team Activities

  • Meet regularly to plan activities/review progress

  • Recruit participants for family-focused program

  • Hire and supervise program implementers

  • Handle all logistics involved with program implementation

  • Market PROSPER programs in their communities

  • Locate resources for sustaining programs


Slide26 l.jpg

PROSPER Implementation Study Findings

  • Poor implementation threatens validity

  • The range of percentage of adherence to protocol in literature reviews is 42% to 86%.

  • Average over 90% adherence to the intervention protocol with family EBIs

  • Average over 90% adherence with school EBIs

  • High ratings on other quality indicators

  • Quality maintained across cohorts

Source: Spoth, Guyll, Lillehoj, Redmond, Greenberg (In press). PROSPER study of evidence-based intervention implementation quality by community-university partnerships. Journal of Community Psychology.


Prosper sustainability trial substance initiation results l.jpg

**p <0.01

PROSPER Sustainability TrialSubstance Initiation Results

Outcomes at 1½ and 3½ Years Past Baseline

Source: Spoth, Redmond, Shin, Greenberg, Clair, & Feinberg (2007). Substance use outcomes at 1½ years past baseline from the PROSPER community-university partnership trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), 395-402.


Slide28 l.jpg

General Conclusions about Family Programs

  • Ultimate goal is measurable public health impact on substance-related (and other health) problems—using universal preventive interventions delivered with quality on a large scale

  • In this connection, our research suggests ISFP/SFP 10-14 (plus school interventions)

    • can work well—effective long-term,

    • across the risk spectrum,

    • with economic benefits,

    • even when “turned over” to community teams


Needed work in family focused prevention the 4 es of intervention impact l.jpg

Needed Work in Family-Focused Prevention―The 4 Es of Intervention Impact

  • EffectivenessMore programs evaluated more vigorously (e.g., long-term follow-ups)

  • Extensiveness of coverage Fill gaps re population needs (e.g., for sociodemographically diverse populations, rural to urban)

  • EfficiencyMore programs with multiple outcomes, economically efficient programs

  • EngagementEffective strategies at individual and organizational levels (e.g., increase organizational readiness to adopt and sustain quality implementation)

Spoth, R. (In press). Translation of family-focused prevention science into public health impact: Toward a translational impact paradigm. Current Directions in Psychological Science.


Plotting the future course key tasks in translating science into practice l.jpg

Plotting the Future Course―Key Tasks in Translating Science into Practice

  • Adopt comprehensive public health impact oriented models

    • Integrate service development models with evaluation research

    • Factor organizational readiness and capacity building

    • Factor quality implementation with sustainability

  • Implement policies that

    • Prioritize implementation of programs with evidence of potential economic/public health impact

    • Fund broad-spectrum translational research to guide effective large-scale delivery, guided by comprehensive public health models

    • Support infrastructure for effective large-scale delivery (e.g., practitioner-scientist networks)

Spoth, R. (In press). Translation of family-focused prevention science into public health impact: Toward a translational impact paradigm. Current Directions in Psychological Science; Spoth, R. L., & Greenberg, M. T. (2005). Toward a comprehensive strategy for effective practitioner-scientist partnerships and larger-scale community benefits. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 107-126.


Slide31 l.jpg

…Linked with an International Research “Network”


Slide32 l.jpg

Acknowledgement of

Our Partners in Research

Investigators/Collaborators

R. Spoth (Director), C. Redmond & C. Shin (Associate Directors),

T. Backer, K. Bierman, G. Botvin, G. Brody, S. Clair,

T. Dishion, M. Greenberg, D. Hawkins,

K. Kavanagh, K. Kumpfer, C. Mincemoyer,

V. Molgaard, V. Murry, D. Perkins, J. A. Stout

Associated Faculty/Scientists

K. Azevedo, J. Epstein, M. Feinberg, K. Griffin,

M. Guyll, K. Haggerty, S. Huck, R. Kosterman,

C. Lillehoj, S. Madon, A. Mason, J. Melby, M. Michaels,

T. Nichols, K. Randall, L. Schainker,

T. Tsushima, L. Trudeau, J. Welsh, S. Yoo

Prevention Coordinators

E. Berrena, M. Bode, B. Bumbarger, E. Hanlon

K. James, J. Meek, A. Santiago, C. Tomaschik


Slide33 l.jpg

Welcome to our website at...

www.ppsi.iastate.edu


  • Login