Test implementation of a school-oriented drug prevention program “Study without Drugs”: pre- and post-testing for effectiveness

BMC Public Health

Kees van der Wolf³  Nanne Karel de Vries²  Fariel Ishaak¹ 

[1] Faculty of Social Science, Anton de Kom University of Suriname, Leysweg 86, Suriname;Department of Health Promotion, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands;Faculty of Social and Behavioural Science University van Amsterdam, P.O. Box 19268, 1000 GG Amsterdam, The Netherlands

关键词: Drugs;    School prevention program;    Adolescents;   

Others  :  1129530
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-590

 received in 2014-01-13, accepted in 2014-06-04,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

In this article, the test implementation of a school-oriented drug prevention program “Study without Drugs” is discussed. The aims of this study were to determine the results of the process evaluation and to determine whether the proposed school-oriented drug prevention program during a pilot project was effective for the participating pupils.

Methods

Sixty second-grade pupils at a junior high school in Paramaribo, Suriname participated in the test implementation. They were divided into two classes. For the process evaluation the students completed a structured questionnaire focusing on content and teaching method after every lesson. Lessons were qualified with a score from 0–10. The process was also evaluated by the teachers through structured interviews. Attention was paid to reach, dose delivered, dose received, fidelity, connection, achieved effects/observed behaviors, areas for improvement, and lesson strengths. The effect evaluation was conducted by using the General Liniair Model (repeated measure). The research (-design) was a pre-experimental design with pre-and post-test.

Results

No class or sex differences were detected among the pupils with regard to the assessment of content, methodology, and qualification of the lessons. Post-testing showed that participating pupils obtained an increased knowledge of drugs, their drug-resisting skills were enhanced, and behavior determinants (attitude, subjective norm, self-efficacy, and intention) became more negative towards drugs.

Conclusions

From the results of the test implementation can be cautiously concluded that the program “Study without Drugs” may yield positive results when applied in schools). Thus, this pilot program can be considered a step towards the development and implementation of an evidence-based school-oriented program for pupils in Suriname.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Ishaak et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Humanos: Children in the Street. Models Drug for Prevention based on Human Rights. Boletín del Instituto Interamericano del Niño “INFANCIA”. Tomo 69N° 236: Montevideo; 2001. Febrero de
• [2]Davis JM, Cooke SM: Educating for a healthy, sustainable world: an argument for integrating health promoting schools and sustainable schools. Health Promot Int 2007, 22(4):346-353.
• [3]Suhrcke M, de Paz NC: The Impact of Health and Health Behaviours on Educational Outcomes in High-Income Countries: A Review of the Evidence. Copenhagen, WHO Regional Office for Europe: World Health Organization; 2011.
• [4]Wester P, De Jong A: Uitgaan en Drugs; Producten Binnen het Domein School [in Dutch]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Trimbos-instituut; 1999.
• [5]Cuijpers P: Effective ingredients of school-based drug prevention programs. A systematic review. Addict Behav 2002, 27(6):1009-1023.
• [6]Alton-Lee A: Improving Educational Policy and Practice through an Iterative Best Evidence synthesis Program. Wellington: Ministry of Education; 2004.
• [7]Onderwijsraad: Naar meer evidence based onderwijs. [Towards more evidence based Education]. The Netherlands: Onderwijsraad; 2006.
• [8]Davies P: What is Evidence-Based Education?. Oxford: Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford; 1999.
• [9]Van der Wolf K, Van Beukering T: Gedragsproblemen in Scholen. Het Denken en Handelen van Leraren [Behavioral Problems in Schools, the Thinking and Action of Teachers]. Cecco: The Netherlands; 2009.
• [10]Pentz MA: Evidence-based prevention: characteristics, impact and future direction. J Psychoactive Drugs 2003, 35(Suppl 1):143-152.
• [11]Rutman LS: Evaluation Research Methods: A Basic Guide. London: Beverly Hills; 1977.
• [12]Windsor RA, Baranowski T, Clark N, Cutter G: Evaluation of Health Promotion, Health Education, and Disease Prevention Programs. Mayfield: Mountain View; 1994.
• [13]Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Fernandez ME: Planning Health Promotion Programs: An Intervention Mapping Approach. San Francisco: Jossy-Bar; 2011.
• [14]Linnan L, Steckler A: Process evaluation for public health interventions and research: an overview. In Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and Research. Edited by Steckler A, Linnan L. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002:1-23.
• [15]Saunders RP, Evans MH, Josh P: Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how to guide. Health Promot Pract 2005, 6:134-147.
• [16]Brug J, van Assema P, Lechner L: Gezondheidsvoorlichting en Gedragsverandering: Een Planmatige Aanpak [Health Education and Behavior Change: A Systematic Approach]. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum & Comp; 2007.
• [17]Drug Demand Reduction Program: Rapid Situation Assessment. Verslag: DDR; 2005.
• [18]Drugs Demand Reduction Program Suriname: Verslag van de School-Drugs Survey. [Report of the school drugs survey]. Suriname: Paramaribo; 2004.
• [19]Drugs Demand Reduction Program Suriname: Verslag van de School-Drugs Survey. [Report of the school drugs survey]. Suriname: Paramaribo; 2006.
• [20]Drugs Demand Reduction Program Suriname: Kennis en Attitude van Jeugdigen met Betrekking tot Drugs [Knowledge and Attitude of Young People with regard to Drugs]. Paramaribo: Suriname; 2005.
• [21]Green LW, Kreuter MW: Health Program Planning: An Educational & Ecological Approach. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2005.
• [22]Dusenbury L, Falco M, Lake A: A review of the evaluation of 47 drug abuse prevention curricula available nationally. J Sch Health 1997, 67(4):127-132.
• [23]Gottfredson DC, Wilson DB: Characteristics of effective school-based substance abuse prevention. Prev Sci 2003, 4:27-38.
• [24]Tobler NS, Roona MR, Ochshorn P, Marshall DG, Streke AV, Stackpole KM: School-based adolescent drug prevention programs: 1998 Meta-Analysis. J Prim Prev 2000, 20(4):275-336.
• [25]Wiefferink CH, Poelman J, Linthorst M, Vanwesenbeeck I, van Wijngaarden JC, Paulussen TG: Outcomes of a systematically designed strategy for the implementation of sex education in Dutch secondary schools. Health Educ Res 2005, 20:323-333.
• [26]Rogers EM: Diffusion of Innovations. 5th edition. New York: The Free Press; 2003.
• [27]Zaltman G, Duncan R: Strategies for Planned Change. New York: Wiley; 1977.
• [28]Ajzen I: The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum 1991, 50:179-211.
• [29]Paulussen TGW: Adoption and Implementation of AIDS Education in Dutch Secondary Schools. Dutch Centre for Health Promotion and Health Education: Utrecht; 1994.
• [30]Paulussen T, Kok G, Schaalma HP, Parcel GS: Diffusion of AIDS curricula among Dutch secondary school teachers. Health Educ Q 1995, 22:227-243.
• [31]Boekaerts M: Towards a model that integrates motivation, affect, and learning. In Development and Motivation: Joint Perspectives. Edited by Smith L, Rogers C, Tomlinson P. England: The British Psychological Society; 2003.
• [32]Boekaerts M, Simons RJ, Simons PR: Leren en instructie [Learning and Instruction]. Assen, the Netherlands: Van Gorcum; 1995.
• [33]Tjipke van der Veen: Lesgeven en Zelfstandig Leren [Teaching and Independent Learning]. Assen, The Netherlands: Van Gorcum; 2009.
• [34]Buston K, Wight D, Hart G, Scott S: Implementation of a teacher-delivered sex education program: obstacles and facilitating factors. Health Educ Res 2002, 17(1):59-72.
• [35]Reubsaet A, Reinaerts EBM, Brug J, Van Hooff JP, van den Borne HW: Process evaluation of a school-based education program about organ donation and registration, and the intention for continuance. Health Educ Res 2004, 196:720-729.
• [36]Reynolds KJ, Oakes PJ, Haslam SA, Nolan MA, Dolnik L: Responses to powerlessness: Stereotyping as an instrument of social conflict. Group Dyn Theor Res 2000, 4(4):275-290.
• [37]Singh AS, Chin A, Paw MJ, Brug J, van Mechelen W: Dutch obesity intervention in teenagers: Effectiveness of a school-based program on body composition and behavior. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2009, 163(4):309-317.
• [38]Pankratz M, Hallfors D, Cho H: Measuring perceptions of innovation adoption: the diffusion of a federal drug prevention policy. Health Educ Res 2002, 17(3):315-326.
• [39]Rohrbach LA, Sussman S, Dent CW, Sun P: Tobacco, alcohol, and other drug use among high-risk young people: a five-year longitudinal study from adolescence to emerging adulthood. J Drug Issues 2005, 35(2):333-356.
• [40]Johnson DW, Johnson FP: Joining together: Group Theory and Group Skills. 7th edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2000.
• [41]Van Oudenhoven JP: Groepsdynamica [Group Dynamics]. Groningen, The Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff; 1998.
• [42]Bloom B: Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1971.
• [43]Anderson LW, Krathwohl DR: Developing and Writing Behavioural Objectives. Tucson, AZ: Educational Innovators Press; 1970. New cognitive domain: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/coursedev/models/id/taxonomy/#table webcite Based upon Dave RH, as reported in Armstrong RJ et al
• [44]Massaro G, Veerhoeven W: Beter ten Halve Gekeerd; Pretesten van VoorlichtingsmaterialenvoorMigranten [Better to Turn Back Halfway; Pretesting Information Materials for Migrants]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Nederlands Centrum Buitenlanders; 1992:7-11.
• [45]Romiszowski A: The development of physical skills: instruction in the psychomotor domain. In Instructional Design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory, Volume. Edited by Reigeluth CM. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1999:457-481.
• [46]Remmerswaal JLM: HandboekGroepsdynamica: EenNieuweInleiding op Theorie en Praktijk [Group Dynamics: A New Introduction to Theory and Practice]. Soest, The Netherlands: Nelissen; 2003.
• [47]Breedlove W, Burkett T, Winfield I: Collaborative testing, gender, learning styles, and test performance. Int J Scholarsh Teach Learn 2007, 4(2):33-42.
• [48]Ding N: Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning and Gender. The Netherlands: University of Groningen; 2009.
• [49]Fuchs D, Fuchs LS, Mathes PG, Simmons DC: Peer-assisted learning strategies: making classrooms more responsive to diversity. Am Educ Res J 1997, 34(1):174-206.
• [50]Veendrick L, Tavecchio LWC, Doornenbal J: Jongensalsprobleem: inleidingbij het themadeel [Guys like problems: introduction to the theme section]. The Netherlands. Pedagogiek 2004, 24(1):12-22.
• [51]Thorpe G: Multilevel analysis of PISA 2000 reading results for the United Kingdom using pupil scale variable. Sch Eff Sch Improv 2006, 17(1):33-62.
• [52]Smith PL, Ragan TJ: Instructional Design. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company; 1999.
• [53]van Langen A, Driessen G: Sekseverschillen in Schoolloopbanen. Een Internationaal Comparatieve Trendstudie [Gender differences in school careers. An international comparative trend study]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: ITS; 2006.