Wagner 2000b.

Methods	Study design: controlled before‐after study (independent samples) Sampling frame: ninth and twelfth graders from public and private schools where at least 50% of enrolled students resided in the community Sampling method: all available students from schools implementing the intervention Collection method: school‐based self administered questionnaire Description of the community coalition: The 11 grantees of the Community Health Promotion Grant Program were expected to establish coalitions that encompassed a broad spectrum of community agencies and organizations. Sponsoring agency for the coalition at this site (“Community I”) was a county mental health center; no further site‐specific information on coalition composition or structure is reported
Participants	Communities: Native American reservation Country: USA Ages included in assessment: adolescents (age range not provided) Reasons provided for selection of intervention community: not reported Intervention community (population size): Native American reservation (4149) Comparison community (population size): Native American reservation plus 2 other rural communities (population size not reported)
Interventions	Name of intervention: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation’s Community Health Promotion Grants Program Theory: not reported Aim: to address suicide and substance abuse among Native American teens Description of costs and resources: $150,000 per year from Kaiser Family Foundation plus any external funding or in‐kind donations the program could obtain (total funding not reported by community; overall average = $237,000 per year per site total) Components of the intervention: school‐based training; peer counseling programs; drug‐free activities; family resource center; community education activities; improvement in law enforcement Start date: 1987 Duration: 5 years
Outcomes	Outcomes and measures  Binge drinking (self reported) Marijuana use (self reported) Time points: baseline (1988) and follow‐up (1992)
Notes	Because the 11 grantee communities had different populations, interventions, and evaluation study designs, and because the evaluation was stratified by site, the 2 communities with a minority target group and complete evaluation results are presented as separate studies (see Wagner 2000a)  Funding source: Kaiser Foundation
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	High risk	Not randomized
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	High risk	No allocation concealment
Baseline outcome measurement similar	High risk	Baseline rates of substance abuse much higher in intervention community
Baseline characteristics similar	Unclear risk	Baseline characteristics not presented
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	School‐based surveys in 9th and 12th grades
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Independent cross‐sectional samples imply no attrition; response rates not given by site or survey time
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	No blinding
Protection against contamination	Unclear risk	Portion of control population drawn from same area as target population, but different ethnic group
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Only 2 major substance abuse outcomes reported