2. Outcomes not included in meta‐analysis.
| Author and year | Study name | Categorisation | Outcome | Authors' conclusions |
| 1. Tobacco use | ||||
| Bonds 2010 | New Beginnings | Family‐Targeted | Tobacco use disorder (including nicotine withdrawal and dependence) | No difference between study arms in the proportion of participants meeting criteria for nicotine use disorder (6.7% in each arm) |
| Bush 1989 | Know Your Body | School‐Universal | Serum thiocyanate (micromoles/L) | Mean difference from baseline to 1 year follow‐up was ‐9.87 (SE 2.5) in the intervention group, and 20.03 (SE 2.68) in the control group (P < 0.001). These data were based on a 50% subsample stratified at baseline, based on measurement after 1 year of intervention. |
| Connell 2007 | Family Check‐Up | Family‐Universal | Nicotine abuse/dependence | Across treatment and control groups, no significant differences were found for nicotine abuse/dependence (Chi² (1, 998) = 3.09, P > 0.05). No significant correlation between assignment to experimental condition(s) and tobacco use over time |
| DeGarmo 2009 | LIFT | School‐Universal | Initiation of tobacco use | With controls for parental drinking and deviant peer association, the intervention was associated with reduced risk of initiation of tobacco use (beta = ‐0.10, P < 0.01). The effect translated to odds ratios of a 10% reduction in risk for tobacco use. |
| Estrada 2015 | Brief Familias Unidas | Family‐Targeted | Tobacco use in past 90 days | Brief Familias Unidas was not significantly efficacious in reducing tobacco use (beta = ‐0.09, P = 0.85) in the past 90 days. |
| Gonzales 2012 | Bridges to High School | Family‐Targeted | Substance use | Study authors report that substance use at follow‐up was less in the intervention group than in the control group for adolescents who engaged in high levels (85th percentile) of baseline substance use (d = 3.65). |
| LoSciuto 1999 | Woodrock Youth Development Project | School‐Universal | Substance use in past month (tobacco, alcohol, drugs) | Mean substance use in the past month was 1.1 for the intervention group and 1.15 for the control group (SMD 0.18) |
| McNeal 2004 | All Stars | School‐Universal | Tobacco use in past 30 days | The teacher‐delivered All Stars programme was associated with reduced rate of growth in 30‐day usage of cigarettes (7.4% to 7.8%) compared to the specialist condition (11.0% to 13.8%) and the control group (15.1% to 17.9%). |
| Olds 1998 | Nurse Family Partnership | Family‐Targeted | Mean cigarettes per day | 15‐year follow‐up: incidence of cigarettes smoked per day in past 6 months among those who received nurse visitation through pregnancy (group 3) was 0.91 compared to 1.30 among control participants (P = 0.49). Among a subgroup of women from low socioeconomic status (SES) households who were unmarried, the comparison was 1.32 vs 2.50 among control participants (P = 0.07). Incidence of cigarettes smoked per day in the past 6 months among those who received nurse visitation until the child's second birthday was 1.28 compared to 1.30 among control participants (P = 0.76). Subgroup analysis of women from low SES households who were unmarried showed that incidence was 1.50 among the intervention group compared to 2.50 among controls (P = 0.1). |
| Perry 2003 | DARE and DARE‐Plus | School‐Universal | Current smoker (growth rate) | Growth curve analysis showed that for boys: the growth rate of tobacco use was 0.31 (0.05) in the control group, 0.28 (0.05) in the DARE group, and 0.18 (0.05) in the DARE Plus group (DARE vs control P = 0.28; DARE Plus vs control P = 0.02; DARE Plus vs DARE P = 0.08). Among girls: the growth rate was 0.28 (0.07) in the control group, 0.25 (0.07) in the DARE group, and 0.22 (0.07) in the DARE Plus group (DARE vs control P = 0.38; DARE Plus vs control P = 0.25; DARE plus vs DARE P = 0.35). |
| Piper 2000 | Healthy for Life | School‐Universal | Tobacco use in past 30 days | The age‐appropriate condition showed no benefit over the control condition at 12‐month follow‐up (prevalence 24% in both arms; HLM coefficient 0.18, SE 0.12, P > 0.1) or at 24‐month follow‐up, where prevalence was higher in the intervention group (prevalence 36% vs 30% in the control group, coefficient 0.41, SE 0.2, P < 0.1). Among those receiving the intensive condition, prevalence was similar in both study arms (12 months: 22% vs 24% in the control group; coefficient ‐0.3, SE 0.17, P > 0.1; 24 months: 28% vs 30% in the control arm; coefficient ‐0.38, SE 0.15, P < 0.05). |
| Saraf 2015 | (none given) | School‐Universal | Tobacco use | Current smoking (in the past month) changed from 13.1% (95% CI 10.2% to 15.9%) to 3.1% (95% CI 0.2% to 5.9%) in the intervention group; and from 7.7% (95% CI 5.0% to 10.4%) to 5.4% (95% CI 2.6% to 8.2%) in the control group (overall difference between groups in pre‐ to post‐change ‐7.7 (‐10.7 to ‐4.7); P < 0.01. |
| Schweinhart 1980 | High/Scope Perry Preschool Study | School‐Targeted | Tobacco use | No impact of the intervention on smoking cigarettes 22 years after the end of the programme: 45% of those in the intervention group smoked compared to 56% of those in the control group (P = 0.231). Effect size 0.22 |
| Tierney 1995 | Big Brothers Big Sisters | Individual‐Targeted | Likelihood of smoking | Those receiving the intervention were reported to be 19.7% less likely to start smoking compared to controls (males receiving Big Brothers Big Sisters were 24.5% less likely to start smoking, and females 9.9%). Males from an ethnic minority receiving Big Brothers Big Sisters had a 29.9% increased likelihood of smoking compared to controls, but among females there was a 1.9% reduction. White males and females receiving the intervention had a 47.9% and 14.7% reduced likelihood of smoking, respectively. |
| Walter 1989 | Know Your Body | School‐Universal | Smoking | Among the schools in Westchester, results showed a beneficial impact of the intervention: the school mean at the end of the intervention was 3.5% (SD 4.3%) compared to 13.1% (SD 5.2) among control schools; P < 0.005. This is equivalent to a 73% reduction in the rate of initiation of smoking. |
| 2. Alcohol use | ||||
| Bonds 2010 | New Beginnings | Family‐Targeted | Alcohol use, binge drinking, age commencing drinking | 15‐year follow‐up: alcohol use in the past month higher in the intervention arm than in the control arm (d = 0.23, 95% CI ‐0.26 to 0.72). Intervention arm commenced drinking at a mean age 0.47 years younger than the control group (95% CI ‐1.31 to 0.23 years). Binge drinking in the past year higher in the intervention group than in the control arm (d = 0.16, 95% CI ‐0.14 to 0.46). |
| Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group 2010 | Fast Track | School‐Targeted | Binge drinking problem | The intervention marginally decreased binge drinking at 10‐year follow‐up (adjusted OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.01, P = 0.057). |
| Connell 2007 | Family Check‐Up | Family‐Universal | Alcohol use | No significant association was noted between assignment to experimental condition(s) and alcohol abuse/dependence over time (Chi² (1, 998) = 0.98, P > 0.05), with the exception of Time 2, when a correlation between treatment assignment and alcohol use was observed (r = 0.09, P ≤ 0.05). |
| Cunningham 2012 | SafERteens | Individual‐Targeted | Alcohol use | Reduction in the proportion of participants scoring ≥ 3 on AUDIT‐C from 50% at baseline to 34.4% at 3 months and 37.3% at 12 months (‐12.7% change at 12 months; OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.56) for those in the therapist intervention arm; and a reduction from 45.6% at baseline to 32.7% at 3 months and 28.9% at 12 months (‐16.7% change at 12 months; OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.37) for those in the computer arm . For controls, a reduction from 47.7% to 38.1% at 3 months and 34.7% at 12 months was evident (‐13% change at 12 months). |
| Cunningham 2012 | SafERteens | Individual‐Targeted | Binge drinking | Reduction in the proportion of participants reporting any binge drinking from 52.8% at baseline to 34.4% at 3 months and 38.7% at 12 months (‐14.1% reduction at 12 months; OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.36) among those in the therapist group; and a reduction from 48.5% to 28.8% at 3 months and 30.3% at 12 months (‐18.2% reduction; OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.19) among those in the computer group. Similar reductions were seen in the control group: a reduction from 54% at baseline to 34.6% at 3 months and 36.1% at 12 months (‐17.9% reduction at 12 months). |
| Estrada 2015 | Familias Unidas – Brief | Family‐Targeted | Alcohol use | Brief Familias Unidas was not significantly efficacious in reducing alcohol use (beta = 0.17; P = 0.51) in the past 90 days. |
| Friedman 2002 | Botvin Life Skills Training and Anti‐violence | Individual‐Targeted | Degree of alcohol use | Alcohol use was decreased among intervention participants compared to controls (t = ‐1.24, P > 0.05). |
| Gonzales 2012 | Bridges to High School | Family‐Targeted | Substance use | Study authors report that substance use was less at follow‐up in the intervention group compared to the control group for adolescents who engaged in high levels (85th percentile) of baseline substance use (d = 3.65). |
| Jalling 2016 | Comet 12‐18 | Family‐Targeted | Alcohol use (AUDIT score) | No significant difference was found between groups: at T2, mean AUDIT score was 7.59 (SD 7.60) in the intervention group vs 6.26 (SD 6.79) in the control group. |
| Jalling 2016b | ParentSteps | Family‐Targeted | Alcohol use (AUDIT score) | No significant difference was found between groups: at T2, mean AUDIT score was 5.10 (SD 6.38) in the intervention group vs 6.26 (SD 6.79) in the control group. |
| Kellam 2008 | Good Behaviour Game | School‐Universal | Lifetime alcohol abuse/ dependence | The Good Behaviour Game (GBG) was associated with a reduction in lifetime alcohol abuse/dependence disorders compared to control: 13% for GBG vs 20% for controls (P = 0.08). The effect was similar for males and females. |
| Murry 2014 | SAAF | Family‐Targeted | Escalation of alcohol use | Study authors report through structural equation modelling analysis that youth avoidance of risk opportunity situations served a role in delaying initiation and escalation of use of alcohol and other substances as they transitioned from early to late adolescence. |
| Monti 1999 | Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention | Individual‐Targeted | Alcohol use score | With a 2 × 2 (group × time) repeated measures analysis of variance, time effect showed reductions in alcohol scores (F(1,79) = 24.55, P < 0.001) with no group differences or interactions. |
| Olds 1998 | Nurse Family Partnership | Family‐Targeted | Alcohol use | 15‐year follow‐up: incidence of days drunk alcohol in past 6 months among those who received nurse visitation through pregnancy (group 3) was 1.81 compared to 1.57 among control participants (P = 0.97). Among a subgroup of women from low socioeconomic status (SES) households who were unmarried, the comparison was 1.84 vs 2.49 among control participants (P = 0.41). Incidence of days drunk alcohol in past 6 months among those who received nurse visitation until the child's second birthday was 1.87 compared to 1.57 among control participants (P = 0.96). Subgroup analysis of women from low SES households who were unmarried show the incidence was 1.09 among the intervention group compared to 2.49 among controls (P = 0.03). |
| Perry 2003 | DARE vs DARE Plus | School‐Universal | Alcohol consumption in past month | Growth curve analysis showed that for boys: the growth rate in alcohol use in the past month (mean, SE) was 0.14 (0.02) for those in the control group, 0.11 (0.02) for the DARE group (P = 0.12), and 0.08 (0.02) for the DARE Plus group (P = 0.01) (DARE Plus vs DARE, P = 0.12). Among girls: values were 0.12 (0.03) for controls, 0.13 (0.02) for those in the DARE group (P = 0.40), and 0.08 (0.03) for those in the DARE Plus group (P = 0.15) (DARE Plus vs DARE, P = 0.10). |
| Piper 2000 | Healthy for Life | School‐Universal | Alcohol use in past 30 days | Results showed a negative treatment effect at 12 months and 24 months of follow‐up: in the age‐appropriate intervention, prevalence of alcohol use in the past month was 33% in the intervention group and 28% in the control group at 12 months (hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) coefficient 0.34, SE 0.19, P < 0.1). At 24 months, the prevalence of alcohol use in the past month was 48% in the intervention group and 41% in the control group at 24 months (HLM coefficient 0.3, SE 0.14, P < 0.05). In the intensive version of the intervention, the prevalence of alcohol use at 12 months was 33% vs 28% in the control arm (HLM coefficient 0.2, SE 0.09, P < 0.05), and at 24 months, prevalence was 45% vs 41% in the control arm (HLM coefficient 0.27, SE 0.1, P < 0.05). |
| Schweinhart 1980 | High/Scope Perry Preschool Study | School‐Targeted | Alcohol use | No impact of the intervention on drinking alcoholic beverages several or more times a week 22 years after the end of the programme: 16% of those in the intervention group drank alcohol several or more times a week compared to 26% of those in the control group. Effect size for drinking alcoholic beverages was 0.27 (P = 0.141). |
| Tierney 1995 | Big Brothers Big Sisters | Individual‐Targeted | Likelihood of initiating alcohol use | Those receiving the intervention were 27.4% less likely to start using alcohol than those in the control group (19.2% reduction in likelihood among males and 38.8% among females). The reduction in likelihood was 11.4% among males from an ethnic minority, 53.7% among females from an ethnic minority; 34.5% among white males, and 8.4% among white females. |
| 3. Illicit drug use | ||||
| Connell 2007 | Family Check‐Up | Family‐Universal | Marijuana use | Across treatment and control groups, no significant differences were found for marijuana abuse/dependence (Chi² (1, 998) = 0.74, P > 0.05). No significant correlation was noted between assignment to experimental condition(s) and marijuana use over time, with the exception of Time 2 (r = 0.10, P ≤ 0.05). |
| Bonds 2010 | New Beginnings | Family‐Targeted | Marijuana use, polydrug use, other drug use | 6‐year follow‐up: results showed no significant group effects for drug dependence, drug symptom count, or polydrug use (all P > 0.05). 15‐year follow‐up: intervention group displayed lower past year polydrug use (d = ‐.44, 95% CI ‐.88 to .00) and past year other drug use (d = ‐.06, 95% CI ‐.11 to ‐.00) compared to control group. No difference was observed for marijuana use between intervention and control groups (d = .00, 95% CI ‐.47 to .47). |
| DeGarmo 2009 | LIFT | School‐Universal | Percentage of participants who have not used marijuana | One year post intervention, 2.2% had not used marijuana in the past year compared to 2.3% in the control group. |
| Estrada 2015 | Brief Familias Unidas | Family‐Targeted | Illicit drug use (past 90 days) | Brief Familias Unidas was not significantly efficacious in reducing illicit drug use (beta = 0.03; P = 0.93) in the past 90 days. |
| Friedman 2002 | Botvin Life Skills Training and Anti‐violence | Individual‐Targeted | Degree of drug use and involvement in selling of drugs | Among intervention participants compared to controls, data showed a greater reduction in drug use (t = ‐2.58, P < 0.01) and a greater reduction in the frequency of involvement in the selling of drugs (t = ‐1.99). |
| Freudenberg 2010 | REAL MEN | Individual‐Targeted | Daily marijuana use in past 90 days | Intervention associated with reduced odds of daily marijuana use (OR 0.751). No 95% confidence interval or standard error was provided. |
| Freudenberg 2010 | REAL MEN | Individual‐Targeted | Hard drug use tried in past 90 days | Intervention was associated with reduced odds of trying hard drugs (OR 0.166, P < 0.05). No 95% confidence interval or standard error was provided. |
| Griffin 2006 | Life Skills Training | School‐Universal | High‐risk substance use | 32.4% of participants in the intervention group engaged in high‐risk substance use at the young adult follow‐up compared to 37.1% of those in the control group 11 years following completion of the intervention. |
| Jalling 2016 | Comet 12‐18 and Parent Steps | Individual‐Targeted | Any illicit drug use (%) | Higher odds of illicit drug use were evident among those whose parents took part in the study, although 95% CIs were wide. Comet 12‐18: OR 3.52, 95% CI 1.23 to 10.10. ParentSteps OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.06 to 9.08 |
| McNeal 2004 | All Stars | School‐Universal | Marijuana use in past 30 days | Marijuana use in the past 30 days for those in the specialist arm increased from 3.2% to 4.1% in the intervention group and from 5.0% to 8.7% in the control group (standardised B coefficient = 0.02, P > 0.05). For those in the teacher‐delivered arm, the increase was 3.2% at baseline and follow‐up compared to a change from 5.0% to 8.7% in the control group (standardised B coefficient ‐0.01, P > 0.05). |
| Piper 2000 | Healthy for Life | School‐Universal | Marijuana use in past 30 days | In the age‐appropriate condition, prevalence of marijuana use was similar in the intervention and control groups at 12‐month and 24‐month follow‐up (prevalence 4% vs 5% in the control group; OR 0.77, P > 0.1; and 12% vs 10% in the control group; OR 1.28, P > 0.1, respectively). Among those receiving the intensive version of the programme, findings suggested benefit of the intervention: prevalence 5% in both arms at 12 months (OR 0.56, P < 0.05) and prevalence 8% vs 10% in the control condition (OR 0.56, P < 0.05). |
| Tierney 1995 | Big Brothers Big Sisters | Individual‐Targeted | Likelihood of initiating drug abuse | Overall, receiving the intervention was associated with a 45.8% reduction in the likelihood of initiating drug abuse (55% among males and 26.6% among females). The impact was greatest among males and females from an ethnic minority, among whom results showed a 67.8% and 72.6% reduced likelihood of initiating drug use, respectively. White males in the intervention group were 32.7% less likely to start using drugs compared to white males in the control group, but white females were 49.5% more likely to start using drugs compared to white females in the control group. |
| 4. Substance misuse (composite) | ||||
| Beach 2016 | ProSAAF | Family‐Targeted | Substance use in lifetime (self‐reported use of cigarettes, alcohol, and/or marijuana) | At 9 months, young people in the intervention group reported lower levels of substance use initiation compared to those in the control group (coefficient ‐2.25, SE 0.64, t = 3.54, P < 0.01). |
| Berry 2009 | Coaching for Communities | Individual‐Community | Alcohol and drug use | At the end of the intervention, the mean use of alcohol and drugs in the past 30 days was 0.83 in the intervention group and 2.55 in the control group. |
| Estrada 2015 | Brief Familias Unidas | Family‐Targeted | Substance use (alcohol, tobacco, and/or drugs) | Growth curve analyses showed a non‐significant difference in past 90‐day substance use between brief Familias Unidas and CPC (beta = 0.24; P = 0.37). |
| Freudenberg 2010 | REAL MEN | Individual‐Targeted | Alcohol or drug dependence in the past year | Reduced odds of alcohol or drug dependence in the past year following receipt of intervention (OR 0.519, P < 0.05). No 95% confidence interval or standard error was provided. |
| Gonzales 2014 | Bridges to High School (Bridges/ Puentes) | Family‐Targeted | Substance use | Intervention status was associated with a reduction in substance use at 2 years and 5 years post‐test (unstandardised regression coefficients ‐0.3 and ‐0.13, respectively). |
| Griffin 2006 | Life Skills Training | School‐Universal | High‐risk substance use | 32.4% of participants in the intervention group engaged in high‐risk substance use at the young adult follow‐up compared to 37.1% of those in the control group. |
| LoSciuto 1999 | Woodrock Youth Development Project | School‐Universal | Substance use in past month | Participation in the programme was associated with higher average scores for lifetime substance use (F(1,711) = 6.10, P = 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.19) and past month substance use (F(1,712) = 5.93, P = 0.02, Cohen's d = 0.18). The data could not be adjusted for clustering owing to insufficient information reported. |
| Olds 1998 | Nurse Family Partnership | Family‐Targeted | Drug use | At 15‐year follow‐up, data showed no significant difference in the incidence of days of drug use in the past 6 months between intervention and control groups. Among those who received nurse visitation during pregnancy, incidence was 3.55 vs 2.28 among controls (P = 0.49) (low SES, unmarried subgroup: 9.38 vs 4.04, P = 0.01). Among those who received nurse visitation until the child's second birthday, incidence was 2.04 vs 2.28 in the control group (P = 0.54) (low SES, unmarried subgroup: 2.5 vs 4.04 among controls, P = 0.24). |
| 5. Antisocial behaviour and offending | ||||
| Averdijk 2016 | Triple P | Family‐Targeted | Delinquency | No substantial effect of the intervention was found at long‐term follow‐up (age 15 years, beta = 0.004, 95% CI ‐0.15 to 0.15; ES = 0.002). |
| Averdijk 2016 | PATHS | School‐Universal | Delinquency | No substantial effect of the intervention was found at long‐term follow‐up (age 15 years, beta = ‐0.04, 95% CI ‐0.19 to 0.11; ES = ‐0.022). |
| Beach 2016 | ProSAAF | Family‐Targeted | Conduct problems | Follow‐up revealed a beneficial effect of the intervention on conduct problems: coefficient for conduct problems ‐0.54, SE 0.22, t = 2.42, P = 0.05. |
| Berry 2009 | Coaching for Communities | Individual‐Targeted | Variety and volume of offending | For variety of offending, the mean in the intervention group was 3.5 vs 5.95 in the control group at the end of intervention; and for volume of offending, the mean in the intervention group was 18.1 vs 23.9 in the control group. |
| Conduct Disorders Prevention Research Group 2010 | Fast Track | School‐Targeted | Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) | 10 years post intervention, the prevalence of being in the DSM‐IV clinical range for ASPD was lower in the intervention group than in the control group (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.93, P = 0.022). |
| Connell 2007 | Family Check‐Up | Family‐Universal | Antisocial Behaviour | Across treatment and control groups, no significant differences were found for marijuana abuse/dependence (Chi² (1, 781) = 0.69, P > 0.05). No significant correlation between assignment to experimental condition(s) and antisocial behaviour over time |
| Cunningham 2012 | SafERteens | Individual‐Targeted | Any peer aggression | A reduction of 34.3% in the proportion reporting any severe peer aggression at 3 months (from 82.7%), increasing to a 43.3% reduction at 12 months (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.12) for the therapist group. For the computer group, a reduction of 21.3% was evident at 3 months, and 26.2% at 12 months (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.34). For controls, a 16.4% reduction was evident at 3 months, increasing to 25.9% at 12 months. |
| Cunningham 2012 | SafERteens | Individual‐Targeted | Any peer victimisation or peer violence | Reduction of 10.4% at 3 months and 22.7% at 12 months for those in the therapist group (baseline 47.6%) (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.79); and reduction of 2.5% at 3 months and 17.4% at 12 months for the computer group (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.52). Among those in the control group, results showed a 4.7% increase at 3 months but a 12.3% reduction in reported experience of peer violence at 12 months. |
| DeGarmo 2009 | LIFT | School‐Universal | Percentage arrested or detained | At initial follow‐up, 300 days post intervention, 0.6% of those in the intervention group had been detained or arrested vs 4.1% in the control group. 2.5 years post intervention (900 days), 5.1% had been arrested/detained in the intervention group vs 10.3% in the control group. |
| Friedman 2002 | Botvin Life Skills Training and Anti‐violence | Individual‐Targeted | Degree of illegal offences | Among intervention participants vs controls, there was a slight reduction in the degree of illegal offences (t = ‐1.53). |
| Freudenberg 2010 | REAL MEN | Individual‐Targeted | Criminal justice outcomes (re‐arrest, re‐incarceration, problematic behaviour) | Intervention associated with reduced odds of re‐arrest (OR 0.871). No 95% confidence interval or standard error was provided. Odds of re‐incarceration 1.019; the intervention was associated with reduced odds of often engaging in problematic behaviour (OR 0.789) |
| Gonzales 2014 | Bridges to High School (Bridges/ Puentes) | Family‐Targeted | Externalising symptoms | Intervention associated with small reduction in externalising symptoms at 2 and 5 years post‐test (unstandardised regression coefficients ‐0.02 and ‐0.01, respectively) |
| Kellam 2008 | Good Behaviour Game (GBG) | School‐Universal | Lifetime antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) | At ˜ 12 years' follow‐up (participants were aged 19 to 21 years), overall rates of ASPD were lower for those in the GBG groups (17%) vs internal controls (25%) (P = 0.07). |
| LoSciuto 1999 | Woodrock Youth Development Project | School‐Universal | Aggression | No strong evidence showed a greater reduction in aggression in experimental vs control groups at post‐test (F(1, 342) = 2.95, P = 0.09, Cohen's d = 0.19). Insufficient data were available to adjust these findings for clustering of participants by classroom. |
| Olds 1998 | Nurse Family Partnership | Family‐Targeted | Major delinquent acts | At 15‐year follow‐up, results showed no difference between intervention and control groups in the mean number of major delinquent acts committed: mean 2.79 among those who received nurse visitation through pregnancy vs 3.02 in the control group (P = 0.93). Among a subgroup of women from low socioeconomic status (SES) households who were unmarried, the comparison was 3.45 vs 4.09 (P = 0.60). Among those receiving nurse visitation through to the child's second birthday, the comparison was 3.57 vs 3.02 (P = 0.48). Among a subgroup of women from low SES households who were unmarried, the comparison was 3.99 vs 4.09 (P = 0.77). |
| Olds 1998 | Nurse Family Partnership | Family‐Targeted | Mean number of arrests | Differences between groups were evident regarding the incidence of arrests at 15‐year follow‐up. For those visited during pregnancy, the incidence of arrests among children was 0.16 vs 0.36 (P = 0.005); among a subgroup of women from low SES households who were unmarried, the comparison was 0.15 vs 0.45 (P = 0.02). Among those visited through pregnancy and infancy, their children were arrested a mean of 0.17 times vs 0.36 times among controls (P = 0.005); and among a subgroup of women from low SES households who were unmarried, the comparison was 0.20 vs 0.45 (P = 0.03). |
| Olds 1998 | Nurse Family Partnership | Family‐Targeted | Externalising problems | At 15‐year follow‐up, results showed no difference between intervention and control groups in the mean number of externalising problems: mean 13.65 among those who received nurse visitation through pregnancy vs 13.73 in the control group (P = 0.95). Among a subgroup of women from low socioeconomic status (SES) households who were unmarried, the comparison was 15.63 vs 14.18 (P = 0.42). Among those receiving nurse visitation through to the child's second birthday, the comparison was 13.88 vs 13.73 (P = 0.89) Among a subgroup of women from low SES households who were unmarried, the comparison was 11.85 vs 14.18 (P = 0.17). |
| Perry 2003 | DARE vs DARE Plus | School‐Universal | Physical victimisation | Among boys, those in DARE‐Plus schools were less likely than those in control schools to show increases in victimisation (growth rate ‐0.1, SE 0.04, P = 0.02); there was no difference between DARE and control (growth curve rate, mean ‐0.03, SE 0.04, P = 0.18). No differences were evident between groups among girls. |
| Schweinhart 1980 | High/Scope Perry Preschool Program | School‐Targeted | Carried a gun or knife once or more often | At 10‐year follow‐up (when participants were ˜ age 15), 13 of 44 (29.5%) in the intervention group had carried a gun or knife once or more compared to 15 of 55 (27%) in the control group. |
| Shetgiri 2011 | [No study name] | School‐Targeted | Been in trouble with the police in the past 12 months | Eighteen per cent of those in the intervention group had been in trouble with the police in the past 12 months at follow‐up post intervention (21% at baseline) compared to 26% of those in the control group at follow‐up (32% at baseline) (P = 0.41). |
| Tierney 1995 | Big Brothers Big Sisters | Individual‐Targeted | Hitting, stealing, and damaging property | Participation in the intervention was associated with a 32% reduction in the number of times participants hit someone compared to control. The percentage reduction was greater in females than in males (43% vs 25%). Results showed a greater reduction among females from an ethnic minority than among white females (48% reduction vs 2% reduction), and a greater reduction was observed in white males (45%) than in males from an ethnic minority (4%). Data show a 19% reduction in the number of times participants in the intervention group vs the control group stole something and little change (0.15% reduction) in the number of times participants damaged property. Findings show a 16% reduction in the number of times participants in the intervention group took something from a store compared to controls, and a 17% reduction in the number of times participants did risky things. Little change was evident in relation to behavioural conduct (1% reduction in intervention vs control) and the number of times participants were involved in a fight (1% reduction in intervention vs control). |
| 6. Vehicle‐related risk behaviour | ||||
| Schweinhart 1980 | High/Scope Perry Preschool Study | School‐Targeted | Wearing seatbelt | Among those in the intervention group, 24 of 56 (43%) wore a seatbelt sometimes or never 22 years after the end of the programme compared to 40/61 (66%) of those in the control group. Effect size for wearing a seatbelt was 0.37 (P = 0.052). |
| D'Amico 2002 | Risk Skills Training vs DARE | School‐Universal | Driving under the influence/riding with a drinking driver | No differences were observed at 6‐month follow‐up in relation to driving after drinking and riding with a drinking driver (mean values for baseline and 6‐month follow‐up: risk skills training programme group: mean 1.25 (SD 3.30) to 0.95 (SD 2.20); DARE‐A group: mean 0.75 (SD 1.42) to 0.67 (SD 1.26); control group: mean 1.58 (SD 5.32) to 1.32 (4.42). |
| Nirenberg 2013 | ROAD | Individual‐Targeted | Speeding and distracted driving | Scores for speeding and distracted driving were lower in the control group (community service) than in the combined motivational interviewing study arms 6 months post intervention (t(607) = ‐2.32; P = 0.02) (i.e. the control group reported less of the behaviour) (Log+1 transformed mean values: control 2.49 (SD 1.57); combined MI 2.81 (SD 1.53)). No difference between groups was evident in relation to dangerous driving factor scores (t(607) = ‐0.21, P = 0.84) (Log+1 transformed means: control 1.39 (SD 1.46); combined MI 1.34 (SD 1.39)) or scores for alcohol, drugs, and driving (Log+1 mean values: control 0.58 (SD 1.14); combined MI 0.60 (SD 1.14)). |
| 7. Sexual risk behaviour | ||||
| Bonds 2010 | New Beginnings | Family‐Targeted | Number of sexual partners | Significant group effect for number of sexual partners (control mean = 1.65, intervention mean = 0.68, P = 0.01, d = 0.49) |
| Estrada 2015 | Brief Familias Unidas | Family‐Targeted | Inconsistent condom use in past 90 days | Growth curve analyses showed no significant differences in unsafe sexual intercourse, defined as inconsistent condom use, during the past 90 days between brief Familias Unidas and CPC (beta = 0 .26, P = 0 .25). |
| Freudenberg 2010 | REAL MEN | Individual‐Targeted | Engaged in risky sexual behaviour in past 90 days | No difference was observed between the intervention arm and the control arm in relation to the proportion of participants engaging in risky sexual behaviour in the past 90 days (OR 0.856, no 95% CI given, but P > 0.05). |
| Griffin 2006 | Life Skills Training | School‐Universal | Multiple sexual partners | 21.3% of those in the intervention group had multiple sex partners at age 24 years (˜ 11 years following the end of the intervention) vs 24.5% of those in the control group. |
| Griffin 2006 | Life Skills Training | School‐Universal | Condom use | Results showed no difference across experimental conditions in relation to condom use at age 24 years (˜ 11 years following the end of the intervention): 78.7% of the intervention group reported that they did not always use condoms vs 78.2% of controls (Chi² (1) = 0.05, P < 0.82). |
| McBride Murry 2014 | SAAF (Stronger African American Families) | Family‐Targeted | Sexual behaviour | The effect size of the intervention on post‐test sexual behaviour was 0.01, although study authors state that detecting a substantial effect size was unlikely with a sample of < 1000 and owing to the length of time between the programme and longer‐term (65‐month) follow‐up. Using structural equation modelling, study authors also report that participation in SAAF led to protection in engagement in sexual risk behaviour through an indirect mechanism involving increased intervention‐targeted parenting practices (beta = 0.35, P < 0.01), which were associated in turn with increased youth self‐pride (beta = 0.25, P < 0.05), in turn associated with increased protective sexual norms (beta = 0.7, P < 0.01), in turn associated with reduced sexual risk behaviour (beta = ‐0.22, P < 0.01). |
| Olds 1998 | Nurse Family Partnership | Family‐Targeted | Lifetime incidence of sex partners in past 6 months | At 15‐year follow‐up: among those visited during pregnancy, the mean number of sex partners was 1.10 vs 1.56 (P = 0.48); and among a subgroup of women from low SES households who were unmarried, the mean number of sex partners in the past 6 months was 2.23 vs 2.48 (P = 0.73). Among those visited during pregnancy and infancy, mean incidence of sex partners was 1.16 vs 1.56 (P = 0.90); and for the subgroup of women from low SES households who were unmarried, mean was 0.92 vs 2.48 (P = 0.003). |
| Piper 2000 | Healthy for Life | School‐Universal | Sexual intercourse in past 30 days | Students were followed up in the ninth and 10th grades, at 12 and 24 months. Students in the age‐appropriate condition reported higher rates of intercourse than those in the control group (13% vs 11%; HLM coefficient 0.4, SE 0.16, P < 0.05) at 12 months; at 24 months, prevalence was 23% vs 19% (HLM coefficient 0.32, SE 0.2, P > 0.1). The intensive condition had no effect on rates of intercourse in the 2 groups at 12 months (prevalence 15% vs 11% in the control arm, HLM coefficient 0.25, SE 0.21, P > 0.1) nor at 24 months (prevalence 21% vs 19% in the control arm; HLM coefficient ‐0.07, SE 0.15, P > 0.1). |
| 8. Physical inactivity | ||||
| Bush 1989 | Know Your Body | School‐Universal | Fitness score | Study authors highlight that significant changes were observed in a favourable direction in relation to fitness. The observed difference between intervention and control group mean change after 2 years of intervention was ‐0.28 (SE 0.19); and ‐0.38 (SE 0.15) after adjustment for baseline value, age, sex, and socioeconomic status. |
| O’Neill 2016 | Michigan Model for Health | School‐Universal | Physical activity skills | Six weeks following the intervention, results showed a significant intervention effect for physical activity skills: F[53,590.79] = 4.42, P = 0.001. |
| Saraf 2015 | (none given) | School‐Universal | Total time spent watching TV (minutes) | Weak evidence for a reduction in time spent watching television in the intervention group: reported reduction from 70.4% (95% CI 67.0% to 73.8%) at pre‐test to 56.1% (95% CI 53.9% to 58.4%) at post‐test (P < 0.05). In comparison, a slight increase in time spent watching TV was observed in the control group: 56.4% (95% CI 53.9% to 58.9%) at pre‐test increasing to 57.9% (95% CI 55.2% to 60.8%) at post‐test; overall difference 15.8 (95% CI 15.7 to 16.9) (P < 0.01). |
| Tierney 1995 | Big Brothers Big Sisters | Individual‐Targeted | Number of times participated in an outdoor activity | Overall, researchers reported a 23% reduction in the number of times participants participated in an outdoor activity. The effect was greater for males than for females (25% vs 18% reduction). Data show a greater reduction among females from a minority ethnic group (43%) than among males from an ethnic minority group (14%); and a greater reduction among white males (29%) than among males from an ethnic minority (14%). Data for white females were not available. |
| Walter 1989 | Know Your Body | School‐Universal | Recovery index score | In Westchester, the recovery index in the intervention group changed by ‐0.7 per year vs ‐1.4 in the control group (overall difference in school means 0.7 (95% CI ‐0.1 to 1.5)). Among schools in the Bronx, the rate of change per year in the intervention group was ‐2.5 vs ‐2.5 in the control group (difference in school means 0.0, 95% CI ‐1.3 to 1.3). |
| 9. Nutrition | ||||
| O’Neill 2016 | Michigan Model for Health | School‐Universal | Nutritional behaviours | Six weeks following the intervention, results show a significant effect on nutritional behaviours: F[53,213.47] = 2.32, P = 0.04. |
| Walter 1989 | Know Your Body | School‐Universal | BMI | In Westchester, data showed no change per year among intervention schools (mean 0.0 (SD 0.1)) vs a change of 0.1 per year (SD 0.1) among control schools (difference ‐0.1, 95% CI ‐0.3 to 0.1). In the Bronx, the rate of change per year among intervention schools was 0.1 (SD 0.1) vs 0.2 (SD 0.1) among control schools (difference ‐0.1, 95% CI ‐0.3 to 0.1). |
| Walter 1989 | Know Your Body | School‐Universal | Plasma total cholesterol (mg/dL) | In Westchester, the rate of change in total cholesterol was ‐2.1 mg/dL/y (SD 1.0) among intervention schools but ‐0.4 mg/dL/y (SD 0.7) among control schools ‐ equivalent to a net mean change in total cholesterol of ‐1.7 mg/dL/y (‐2.7 to ‐0.7 mg/dL). Among intervention schools in the Bronx, the rate of change was ‐2.6 mg/dL/y (SD 1.5) vs ‐1.6 (SD 1.8) among control schools ‐ equivalent to a difference of ‐1.0 mg/dL/y (95% CI ‐2.3 to 0.3 mg/dL). |
| Walter 1989 | Know Your Body | School‐Universal | Total fat (% of total kcal) | In Westchester, the net mean reduction in total fat intake between intervention and control schools was ‐3.6% (95% CI ‐7.1 to ‐0.1%); in the Bronx, the net mean reduction in total fat intake was ‐1.9% (95% CI ‐7.1 to 3.3%). Data are presented from a random subsample of the total study population. |
| Walter 1989 | Know Your Body | School‐Universal | Systolic blood pressure (mmHg) | Among schools in Westchester, systolic blood pressure changed by 0.6 mmHg (SD 0.8) vs 0.8 mmHg (SD 0.6) in the control group, for an overall difference of ‐0.2 mmHg (‐1.0 to 0.6 mmHg). |
| 10. Mental health | ||||
| Bonds 2010 | New Beginnings | Family‐Targeted | Internalising disorder, externalising disorder | 6‐year follow‐up: the MPCP intervention arm had significantly fewer externalising problems (‐0.11, SE 0.11) compared to the control group (0.08, SE 0.14) (P = 0.02). There was no difference between intervention and control in the number of internalising problems nor in the mental disorder symptom count (P ≥ 0.05). 15‐year follow‐up: lower proportion of intervention group participants with (1) internalising disorder diagnosed in past 9 years; intervention: 4.55% (SD 2.69), control: 16.7% (SD 3.25, OR 0.26), and (2) externalising disorder diagnosed in past 9 years; intervention: 0% (SD 0), control: 3.64% (SD 0.04). |
| Gonzales 2014 | Bridges to High School (Bridges/ Puentes) | Family‐Targeted | Internalising symptoms | Intervention was associated with slight increase in internalising symptoms at 2 years post‐test (unstandardised regression coefficient 0.42) but a small reduction in internalising symptoms at 5 years post‐test (unstandardised regression coefficient ‐0.02). |
| Kellam 2008 | Good Behavior Game | School‐Universal | Lifetime major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder | At ˜ 12 years following intervention, when participants were aged 19 to 21 years, unadjusted rates of lifetime major depressive disorder were lower for the GBG group (10%) than for the control group (15%) (P = 0.27). The difference was slightly larger for males than for females (males: 9% for GBG, 14% for controls; females: 12% for GBG, 15% for controls). Overall rates of generalised anxiety disorder were small and did not differ by intervention condition (2% for GBG, 3% for control; P = 0.37). |
| Olds 1998 | Nurse Family Partnership | Family‐Targeted | Internalising problems | Results showed no difference between study arms in the mean number of internalising problems at 15‐year follow‐up: for those visited during pregnancy, mean 11.19 vs 10.58, P = 0.46; and among a subgroup of women from low SES households who were unmarried, mean 11.15 vs 10.82, P = 0.8. For those visited through pregnancy and infancy, no difference between groups was evident: mean 11.66 vs 10.58, P = 0.19; among the subgroup of women from low SES households who were unmarried, mean 9.85 vs 10.82, P = 0.44. |
| Cho 2005 (Sanchez 2007, Hallfors 2006) | Reconnecting Youth | School‐Targeted | Anger | Findings regarding depression and anxiety were not reported. However, study authors report that at 6‐month follow‐up, a negative outcome was observed for those in the experimental arm compared to those in the control arm: main programme effect: F= ‐3.62, P = 0.058 (i.e. those in the intervention arm showed greater frequency of anger compared to those in the control arm). |
| Walker 2002 | (none given) | Individual‐Universal | Mental health score | Data show no difference in change in mental health score between intervention and control participants at 3 or 12 months. However, among young people who scored 16 or more on the depression scale (indicating probable depression), there was a greater reduction in mental health score than among those in the control group (‐8.1 intervention, ‐1.4 control, 95% confidence interval (CI) for mean difference ‐0.3 to ‐13.3, P = 0.04 at 3 months; ‐1.6 intervention, 4.4 control, 95% CI ‐0.5 to ‐11.5, P = 0.03). |
| 11. Educational attainment | ||||
| Berry 2009 | Coaching for Communities | Individual‐Targeted | In education/employment | At follow‐up (post intervention), 85% of those in the intervention group were in education or employment vs 59% of those in the control group (P < 0.05). |
| Bond 2004 | Gatehouse Project | School‐Universal | Low school attachment | Two years following the intervention, the OR for low school attachment was 1.21 (95% CI 0.93 to 1.57). |
| Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group 2010 | Fast Track | School‐Targeted | Graduated from high school or graduate equivalency diploma | At long‐term follow‐up, the adjusted OR for graduation from high school or a graduate equivalency diploma was 0.93 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.27, P = 0.654). |
| Freudenberg 2010 | REAL MEN | Individual‐Targeted | Enrolled in educational or vocational programmes in the past year | Receipt of the intervention was associated with increased odds of being enrolled in educational/vocational programmes (OR 1.330). No 95% CI or standard error was provided. |
| Friedman 2002 | Life Skills Training and Anti‐violence Program | Individual‐Targeted | School problems | No difference was evident between groups in relation to school problems (t = 0.91, P > 0.05). |
| Gonzales 2014 | Bridges to HIgh School (Bridges/Puentes) | Family‐Targeted | High school dropout (no high school degree or equivalent and no attendance at high school at 12th grade assessment) | The path coefficient estimate for high school dropout at 5‐year follow‐up was not statistically significant (unstandardised regression coefficient ‐0.16), but an indirect effect of the intervention was identified through school engagement (unstandardised regression coefficient ‐0.062, 95% CI ‐0.517 to ‐0.001). |
| Kellam 2014 | Good Behavior Game | School‐Universal | High school graduation | High school graduation rates were slightly higher for those in the GBG arm (72%) than for those in the control arm (64%), and this effect was larger for males than for females (68% vs 54%, respectively). However, these data were not adjusted for clustering. |
| Kitzman 2010 | Nurse Family Partnership | Family‐Targeted | Academic achievement (grade point average ‐ GPA) | The GPA for grades 1 to 6 for those in the intervention group was 2.39 (0.04) vs 2.48 (0.05) for those in the control group (P = 0.19, mean difference 0.09 (‐0.04 to 0.22)). For PIAT scores (reading and maths) at 12 years, the mean difference was 1.27 (‐0.44 to 2.98) (P = 0.14). Among families of lower socioeconomic status, those in the intervention group had higher PIAT scores in reading and math at age 12 (ES 0.25, P = 0.009), higher GPAs and group‐based achievement test scores in reading and math in grades 1 through 6 (ES 0.18, P = 0.03; ES 0.22, P = 0.02, respectively), and higher GPAs in reading and math in grades 4 through 6 (ES 0.18, P = 0.047). |
| Li 2011 | Positive Action | School‐Universal | Suspension from school | No difference between study arms was observed at follow‐up in relation to suspensions from school (IRR 0.58, 95% CI 0.15 to 2.26). |
| LoSciuto 1999 | Woodrock Youth Development Project | School‐Universal | School attendance | Participants in the intervention group reported better average scores for self‐reported school attendance (F(1,705) = 12.18, P < 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.26). Insufficient data were available to adjust these findings for clustering of participants by classroom. |
| Melnyk 2003 | COPE | School‐Universal | Academic competence | Academic competence was slightly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (adjusted mean 97.97, 95% CI 96.35 to 99.59; vs 95.69, 95% CI 94.21 to 97.18), respectively. F = 4.03, P = 0.05. |
| Morris 2003 | Self‐Sufficiency Project | Family‐Targeted | Dropped out of school (aged 15 to 18) | At 36‐month follow‐up, math score at age 12 to 14 was 0.45 in the intervention group compared to 0.46 in the control group (ES ‐0.03); and average achievement was 3.43 compared to 3.54 in the control group (ES ‐0.11). Child‐reported average achievement was 3.50 in the intervention group vs 3.57 in the control group (ES ‐0.09). |
| Morris 2003 | Self‐Sufficiency Project | Family‐Targeted | Average achievement (self‐reported) | Self‐reported average achievement was similar between intervention and control groups at 36 months of follow‐up (effect size ‐0.09). |
| Olds 1998 | Nurse Family Partnership | Family‐Targeted | Mean long‐term school suspensions | Data show no difference between study arms in the mean number of long‐term school suspensions at 15‐year follow‐up. For those visited during pregnancy: mean 0.0 vs 0.04, P = 1.0; among a subgroup of women from low SES households who were unmarried: mean 0.01 vs 0.15, P = 0.97. For those visited through pregnancy and infancy, no difference between groups was evident: mean 0.01 vs 0.04, P = 1.0; among the subgroup of women from low SES households who were unmarried, mean 0.04 vs 0.15, P = 0.25. |
| Schweinhart 1993 | High/Scope Perry Preschool Program | School‐Targeted | Total school achievement | Those in the intervention group had higher total achievement (mean 122.2, SD 41.6) than those in the control group (mean 94.5, SD 35.5) at 9‐year follow‐up. |
| Tierney 1995 | Big Brothers Big Sisters | Individual‐Targeted | Grade point average | Educational impacts of the intervention were more pronounced among girls than among boys. Overall, those receiving the intervention overall had a higher grade point average (GPA) than those given control (average 2.71 vs 2.63). The difference was particularly marked among girls from an ethnic minority (average GPA 2.83 vs 2.62 for those in the control group). |
| Tierney 1995 | Big Brothers Big Sisters | Individual‐Targeted | Truancy/skipping school | Participants of Big Brothers Big Sisters showed a 52% reduction in the number of times they skipped a day of school and a 37% reduction in the number of times they skipped class. The impact was greater among girls than boys, for instance those in the intervention group showed 84% reduction compared to 4% reduction for skipping a day of school. The reduction was greater for white females than for females from an ethnic minority (92% reduction vs 78% reduction, respectively, for skipping a day of school; 72% vs 46% reduction for skipping class). Among white males compared to males from an ethnic minority, the reduction was similar for skipping a day of school, but a greater impact was evident among ethnic minority males than among white males for skipping class (22% vs 12% reduction). |
| 12. Teenage pregnancy | ||||
| Olds 1998 | Nurse Family Partnership | Family‐Targeted | Ever pregnant or made someone pregnant in the previous 6 months | At age 15 (˜ 13 years following the intervention), 5 of 176 (2.8%) in the intervention group had ever been pregnant or made someone pregnant compared to 4 of 148 (2.7%) in the control group (OR 1.04, SE 0.65). |
| Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group 2010 | Fast Track | School‐Targeted | Pregnancy by age 18 | At age 18, the proportion of participants reporting pregnancy were as follows: girls: urban African American 40%, urban European American 21%, rural European American 17%; boys: urban African American 27%, urban European American 12%, rural European American 11%. |
| Schweinhart 1993 | High/Scope Perry Preschool Program | School‐Targeted | At least 1 pregnancy by age 19 (females only) | At 14‐year follow‐up, 12 of 25 (48%) in the intervention group had had at least 1 pregnancy by age 19 compared to 16 of 24 (67%) in the control group (effect size 0.5). |
| 13. Health problems | ||||
| Schweinhart 1993 | High/Scope Perry Preschool Study | School‐Targeted | Long‐term health problems | 22 years following completion of the intervention, 36% of those in the intervention group had had health problems treated in the previous 5 years compared to 38% in the control group (effect size 0.04, P = 0.823). 30% of those in the intervention group had been hospitalised in the previous 12 months compared to 15% of those in the control group (effect size 0.38; P = 0.043). |
ASPD: antisocial personality disorder.
CI: confidence interval.
COPE: Creating Opportunities for Personal Empowerment.
CPC: Community Practice Condition.
DARE: Drug Abuse and Resistance Education.
DSM: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
ES: Effect size.
GBG: Good Behaviour Game.
GPA: grade point average.
HLM: hierarchical linear modelling.
LIFT: Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers.
MPCP: Mother program plus child program.
OR: odds ratio.
PATHS: Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies.
ProSAAF: Protecting Stronger African American Families program.
ROAD: Reducing Offenses of Adolescent Drivers.
SafERteen: brief intervention aimed at reducing and preventing violence and alcohol use.
SD: standard deviation.
SE: standard error.
SES: socioeconomic status.
SMD: standardised mean difference.