Science, Policy and Practice – Lessons from America
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20882/adicciones.309Keywords:
policy, collaboration, prevention, evaluation, USAAbstract
The experience in the United States regarding drug abuse prevention has involved three entities: scientific researchers, practitioners who work with youth, and policy makers. To the degree that each of these entities play complimentary roles, society benefits. In the past, these three entities have not collaborated or taken advantage of the strengths that each has to offer. Future goals should place an emphasis on scientific researchers contributing to the development and rigorous testing of programmatic approaches. Practitioners not only need to adopt effective programs and implement with fidelity, but also need to provide scientists opportunities to collaborate in order to make programs work for specific settings and populations. Finally, policy makers need to support prevention with funding and policy that is friendly to effective prevention and immune from political whims. Entities outside the United States can learn from the thirty years of experience of prevention experienced in North America.References
Botvin, G.J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Tortu, S. et al. (1990) Preventing adolescent drug abuse through a multimodal cognitive-behavioral approach: Results of a 3-year study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 437-446.
Hallfors D., & Godette D. (2002). Principles of effectiveness improve prevention practice? Early findings from a diffusion study. Health Education Research, 17(4), 461-470.
Hansen, W.B. (1992), “School based substance abuse prevention: a review of the state-of-the-ar t in curriculum, 1980–1990”, Health Education Research, Vol. 7, pp. 403-30.
Hansen WB, Dusenbury L, Bishop D, & Derzon JH. (2006). Substance abuse prevention program content: Systematizing the classification of what programs target for change. Health Education Research. doi:10.1093
Hawkins JD, Catalano RF, & Miller JY. (1992). Risk and protective factors for alcohol and other drug problems in adolescence and early adulthood: Implications for substance abuse prevention. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1); 64-105.
Ennett S.T., Tobler N.S., Ringwalt C.L., Flewelling R.L. (1995). How effective is drug abuse resistance education? A meta-analysis of Project DARE outcome evaluations. American Journal of Public Health, 85 (6) 873-874
Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2006). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975-2005. Volume I: Secondary school students (NIH Publication
No. 06-5883). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 684 pp.
NIH (2007c). CRISP: ERA Commons Computer Retrieval of
Information on Scientific Projects http://crisp.cit.nih.gov/
NIH (2007a). National Institute on Drug Abuse: Important Events
in NIDA History. Found at http://www.nih.gov/about/almanac/archive/1999/organization/nida/history.html
NIH (2007b). National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism: Important Events in NIAAA History. Found at http://www.nih.gov/about/almanac/archive/1999/organization/niaaa/history.html.
Pentz, M.A,, Trebow, E.A., Hansen, W.B., MacKinnon, D.B., Dwyer, J.H., Johnson, C.A., Flay, B.F., Daniels, S., and Cormack, C.C. (1990). Effects of program implementation on adolescent drug use behavior:
The Midwestern Prevention Project (MPP). Evaluation Review, 14, 264-289.
Ringwalt CL, Ennett ST, Johnson R, Rohrbach LA, Simons-Rudolph AP, Vincus AA, & Thorne, J. (2003). Factors associated with fidelity to substance use prevention curriculum guides. Health Education and Behavior, 30, 375-391.
Rohrbach LA, Graham JW, Hansen WB. (1993). Diffusion of a school-based substance abuse prevention program: Predictors of program implementation. Preventive Medicine, 22, 237-260.
Tobler NS. & Stratton H. (1997). Effectiveness of schoolbased drug prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the research. Journal of Primary Prevention, 18 (1), 71-128.
Tortu, S., & Botvin, G., (1989). School-based smoking prevention: The teacher training process. Preventive Medicine, 18, 280-289.
