53 public secondary general schools Impact by SES variable The intervention group in Northern Germany (rural federal included significantly more Participant characteristics with SES as a factor revealed no state of Schleswig-Holstein) pupils who reported a higher influence of SES on the effect of the 102 classes with a total of SES. intervention (SES* time*group). 1,561 pupils. 25% of the Loss to follow-up was 23%. design pupils had a low SES Schools in the intervention Quasi randomised multicentre (6 Author’s conclusion of SES impact group were asked to conduct schools included without School-based life skills programmes have a Outcomes measured one of the two programmes in randomisation to intervention group) positive effect on smoking prevention Self-report cigarettes smoked per classes 5 or 6. regardless of socioeconomic status. week Socially disadvantaged children benefit Objective 30-day smoking prevalence from such programmes to a similar extent External validity To evaluate the effects of two as other pupils. Analyses do not appear to validated school-based life skills Intervention details account for specific life skills programmes (Fit and Strong for Life and Strong for Life” and programmes (“Fit and Strong “Fit “Lions and Lions Quest) in a high-risk Quest”. Both programmes foster life for Life” and Quest”.) sample of socially disadvantaged “Lions skills and self-efficacy and include pupils. the prevention of substance abuse Validity of author’s conclusion (cigarettes, alcohol, and drug SES variables Does not report data for results consumption). Fit and Strong for Life by SES and does not assess Family Affluence Scale is a modular life skills programme for effects of each life skills primary and secondary schools. programme separately so Each module covers the following six analysis difficult to assess equity impact topics: (1) self-esteem and empathy, Repeated standardised interviews of each specific programme. (2) coping with stress and negative before and after school year and at 6 emotions, (3) communication skills, months follow-up, repeated (4) resistance skills and critical measures analyses of variance thinking, (5) problem solving and decision making, (6) health-related knowledge. The consecutive modules are not interdependent and may start at any grade regardless of whether the pupils have participated in the programme before or not. In
53 public secondary general schools in Northern Germany (rural federal state of Schleswig-Holstein) design Quasi randomised multicentre (6 schools included without randomisation to intervention group) Objective To evaluate the effects of two validated school-based life skills programmes (Fit and Strong for Life and Lions Quest) in a high-risk sample of socially disadvantaged pupils. SES variables Family Affluence Scale analysis Repeated standardised interviews before and after school year and at 6 months follow-up, repeated measures analyses of variance Participant characteristics 102 classes with a total of 1,561 pupils. 25% of the pupils had a low SES Outcomes measured Self-report cigarettes smoked per week 30-day smoking prevalence Intervention details “Fit and Strong for Life” and “Lions Quest”. Both programmes foster life skills and self-efficacy and include the prevention of substance abuse (cigarettes, alcohol, and drug consumption). Fit and Strong for Life is a modular life skills programme for primary and secondary schools. Each module covers the following six topics: (1) self-esteem and empathy, (2) coping with stress and negative emotions, (3) communication skills, (4) resistance skills and critical thinking, (5) problem solving and decision making, (6) health-related knowledge. The consecutive modules are not interdependent and may start at any grade regardless of whether the pupils have participated in the programme before or not. In Impact by SES variable with SES as a factor revealed no influence of SES on the effect of the intervention (SES* time*group). Author’s conclusion of SES impact School-based life skills programmes have a positive effect on smoking prevention regardless of socioeconomic status. Socially disadvantaged children benefit from such programmes to a similar extent as other pupils. The intervention group included significantly more pupils who reported a higher SES. Loss to follow-up was 23%. Schools in the intervention group were asked to conduct one of the two programmes in classes 5 or 6. External validity Analyses do not appear to account for specific life skills programmes (“Fit and Strong for Life” and “Lions Quest”.) Validity of author’s conclusion Does not report data for results by SES and does not assess effects of each life skills programme separately so difficult to assess equity impact of each specific programme.