advertising practices were associated with failure. Details Method Results Comments School-based prevention Author, year Data sources General population impact Internal validity Bacon 2001 8% 48/588 in intervention group indicated Confounding influences of greater likelihood of actual tobacco use at interventions were not Participant selection end of programme compared to 12% observed; 16-17% attrition; test Age (years) Randomly selected (45/375) in control, p=0.04. No statistically of equivalence of attrition rates 11 (6th grade) significant difference between groups at 20 by treatment condition did not Participant characteristics weeks follow-up. show attrition bias for students Setting 1318 sixth grade students, 52% predisposition towards future female, 48% white, 33% tobacco use behaviours 6 middle schools in Florida, US Impact by SES variable 13% Hispanic, 6% Asian; The overall findings of the comparison of 51% in receipt of free or reduced External validity design change scores for treatment students school lunches; 84% participated in indicates the programme was similarly Impact by SES only relates to Cluster randomised controlled 20-week follow-up effective in impacting students risk and scores for substance use not protective factors regardless of economic just tobacco use which limits Objective Outcomes measured status (perception of peer resistance skills; comparability To examine effectiveness of ‘Too Intentions, attitudes and perceptions positive attitudes toward non-drug use, Good for Drugs II’ (TGFD II) towards tobacco use perceptions of peer normative substance Validity of author’s conclusion programme use, perceptions of peer disapproval of Equity impact unclear substance use, association with prosocial Intervention details Intervention peers, perceptions of locus of control 9 lesson units (40 minutes each) at 9 week prevention curriculum and each grade by trained classroom follow-up further 20 weeks, Student scores at end of programme and at teacher or TGFD II instructor; social school-based curriculum and also and emotional competencies, 20 follow-up showed significant
advertising practices were associated with failure. Details Method Results Comments School-based prevention Author, year Bacon 2001 Age (years) 11 (6th grade) Setting 6 middle schools in Florida, US design Cluster randomised controlled Objective To examine effectiveness of ‘Too Good for Drugs II’ (TGFD II) programme Intervention 9 week prevention curriculum and follow-up further 20 weeks, school-based curriculum and also Data sources Participant selection Randomly selected Participant characteristics 1318 sixth grade students, 52% female, 48% white, 33% 13% Hispanic, 6% Asian; 51% in receipt of free or reduced school lunches; 84% participated in 20-week follow-up Outcomes measured Intentions, attitudes and perceptions towards tobacco use Intervention details 9 lesson units (40 minutes each) at each grade by trained classroom teacher or TGFD II instructor; social and emotional competencies, General population impact 8% 48/588 in intervention group indicated greater likelihood of actual tobacco use at end of programme compared to 12% (45/375) in control, p=0.04. No statistically significant difference between groups at 20 weeks follow-up. Impact by SES variable The overall findings of the comparison of change scores for treatment students indicates the programme was similarly effective in impacting students risk and protective factors regardless of economic status (perception of peer resistance skills; positive attitudes toward non-drug use, perceptions of peer normative substance use, perceptions of peer disapproval of substance use, association with prosocial peers, perceptions of locus of control Student scores at end of programme and at 20 follow-up showed significant Internal validity Confounding influences of interventions were not observed; 16-17% attrition; test of equivalence of attrition rates by treatment condition did not show attrition bias for students predisposition towards future tobacco use behaviours External validity Impact by SES only relates to scores for substance use not just tobacco use which limits comparability Validity of author’s conclusion Equity impact unclear