See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/254397333

Drug education approaches in secondary schools

Article · January 2002

CITATIONS READS

5 767

3 authors, including:

John W Toumbourou Bosco Charles Rowland

Deakin University Deakin University, Burwood
361 PUBLICATIONS   9,147 CITATIONS    81 PUBLICATIONS   807 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International Youth Development Study View project

Impact of the Resilient Families intervention on adolescent antisocial behavior: 14-month follow-up within a randomized trial View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Bosco Charles Rowland on 14 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Prevention Research
Evaluation Report
Drug education approaches
in secondary schools
by Dr Lena Sanci, Associate Professor John W. Toumbourou, Ms Vanessa San,
Mr Bosco Rowland, Dr Sheryl Hemphill and Mr Geoff Munro
Editorial Assistant: Ms Colleen Farrell
Introduction
The current literature evaluating drug
education in secondary schools shows
examples of programs achieving positive
behavioural changes. According to those
working in the field, the resources and
strategies for effective drug education appear
to be emerging gradually in Victoria. Despite
evidence of progress, interviews with
practitioners in Victoria suggest that many are
pessimistic about whether behavioural
changes can be achieved in the absence of a
framework for evaluation.
This third report in the series of Prevention
Research Evaluation Reports aims to facilitate
access to the growing knowledge of drug
education approaches in secondary schools.
The first part of this report reviews the
technical evidence for the effectiveness of drug
education. The second half reports on a
consultation examining practitioner’s views on
current practice in drug education in Victoria.
What is drug education?
In this report, drug education refers to efforts to
reduce drug-related harm through the delivery
of a structured social-health education curri-
culum within the school context, usually by
classroom teachers, but in some cases by
visiting professionals.
Number 3
November 2002
PART 1
THE EVALUATION EVIDENCE
Current evaluation literature on
drug education in schools
There have been two recent and compreh-
ensive critical literature reviews on drug
education in schools, conducted in Australia
for government departments (Midford, Lenton
& Hancock 2000; Midford, Snow & Lenton
2001). Describing the evolution of approaches
to drug education in schools since the 1930s to
the present, they present the factors that have
been shown in experimental trials to maximise
the effectiveness of programs in preventing or
delaying the onset of drug use and in reducing
drug use.
Other reviews in recent times present
similar conclusions (White & Pitts 1998; Lloyd
et al. 2000, Botvin et al. 1995, Hansen 1992).
The more successful approaches to drug
education have a grounding in the theory of
what is known about the causes of adolescent
drug use, as well as their developmental
pathways in relation to drug abuse and in the
psychological theoretical frameworks of social
learning and problem behaviour (Dusenbury &
Botvin 1990).
Since this body of evidence has been
established over several decades of research,
the authors caution those considering
developing drug education programs to base
them on what is known rather than what
 Prevention Research Evaluation Report
Number 3 November 2002

seems intuitive or ideologically sound. Successful approaches to drug

Historically, poorly conceptualised programs education programs
have been ineffective or, at worst, harmful; for
For the full discussion and references to
example, by increasing drug use (Midford,
successful drug education approaches,
Lenton & Hancock 2000). Factors associated
readers can refer to Midford, Lenton and
with effective drug education programs in
Hancock (2000) or Midford, Snow and Lenton
schools (Ballard, Gillespie & Irwin 1994;
(2001), but the main points are reiterated here.
Coggans & Watson 1995; Dielman 1994;
Successful drug education programs use
Dusenbury and Falco 1995; Kelder et al. 1994)
either the social influence approach or
are that programs should:
programs with multiple components. These
• be research-based/theory-driven
programs place a large emphasis on social
• deliver coherent and consistent messages
influences rather than on information or
• present developmentally appropriate,
approaches that target affective education
balanced information
alone. Affective education approaches in this
• provide resistance-skills training
context refer to programs that address the
• incorporate normative education
feelings or mood of the individual.
• educate before behavioural patterns are
The social influences approach is based
established
upon the belief that young people begin to use
• relate strategies to objectives
drugs because of their self-image and/or social
• address values, attitudes and behaviours
pressures. The social influence approach
of the individual and community
suggests that, in order to resist substances,
• address the inter-relationship between
young people need to be inoculated with
individuals, social context and drug use
counter arguments and to be well practised in
• focus on prevalent and harmful drug use
using them.
• make judicious use of peer leadership
Life Skills Training (LST) is one of the best
• be delivered within an overall framework of
known and successful of the social influences
harm minimisation
approaches (Botvin et al. 1990). The social
• incorporate broader social skills training
influences approach has been shown to have
and be part of a comprehensive health
benefits in reducing other anti-social
education curriculum
behaviours, particularly when it incorporates
• employ interactive teaching approaches
booster sessions at critical points in adolescent
• ensure optimal training and support for
development, reinforcing community
teachers
messages and a parenting component. While
• provide adequate initial coverage and
the original evaluation studies of LST have
continuing follow-up in booster sessions
produced significant education benefits,
• be sensitive to cultural characteristics of
Gorman (1996) has warned that many
the target audience
replication efforts have been less successful.
• incorporate additional family, community,
Affective education assumes that young
media and special population components
people who use drugs have personal
• ensure fidelity of implementation
deficiencies. This approach therefore seeks,
• be evaluated.
among other things, to help clarify the values
Explanation of these factors and the papers and enhance the self-esteem of young people,
from which they derive are presented in the believing that this will delay or curtail the onset
review by Midford, Snow and Lenton (2001). of drug use. But programs based only on

Page 2 of 9
 Prevention Research Evaluation Report
affective education have not succeeded in
changing behaviour, perhaps because not all
young people using substances suffer from
personal deficiencies and perhaps because
some might be motivated less by pathology
and more because they enjoy using drugs.
Peer educators and interactive
strategies
Evidence shows that peer educators can be
very effective in prevention education because
they operate from a standard of behaviour that
young people consider to be an established
norm, but only if selected carefully and if well-
supported with management skills from
professional teachers. Peer educators need to
be credible with high-risk young people, have
good communication skills and show
responsible attitudes, but at the same time be
unconventional (Midford, Lenton & Hancock,
2000). In one review, interactive programs
presented by teachers and other leaders, with
role-play, discussion and games, were found
to produce similar results to peer education
(Tobler & Stratton, 1997). It therefore seems
that the interactive component of programs is a
key factor in effective drug education.
Normative information
Students have been found to over-estimate the
extent to which their own age group uses
drugs, miscalculating or misjudging what is the
‘normal’ level of experience with drugs. In an
experimental study comparing different forms
of drug education, Hansen and Graham (1991)
found that providing normative information on
drug use that corrected student over-
estimation of peer drug use was an effective
strategy. In their conclusions Hansen &
Graham argued that normative components
may play a critical role in activating students to
utilise peer resistance strategies. In the
absence of a normative component, resistance
training appeared relatively ineffective.
Page 3 of 9
Number 3 November 2002
Timing and intensity of
education
Timing of prevention education is critical.
Programs must develop progressively and
sequentially, and they must be ongoing
throughout secondary education. It is generally
agreed that the best time to begin a program is
in late primary school or in early secondary
school, when experimentation starts and
before young people in high-risk groups leave
school early. Program commencement dates,
however, need to be adjusted, because the
onset time of drug experimentation, as well as
the types of drug used, will vary between
different populations.
There is evidence that most of the
successful programs are intensive and long-
term (that is, they include booster sessions).
Of the soundly evaluated, effective programs
reviewed by White and Pitts (1998), most had
ten or more sessions devoted to delivery of the
program in the first years, and included
booster sessions in later years. A very
common finding in the evaluation of prevention
programs is that effects tend to be evident
immediately following the interventions but
tend to fall away if further intervention effort is
not made in subsequent years.
Fidelity of implementation
and dissemination
As is indicated in this report, there are many
factors that appear to influence the potential
for drug-education programs to change
behaviour. How is drug education carried out
by teachers when no specific management
programs are in place? In response to 1996
data that teenage drug problems were rising
despite advances in best practice drug
education, Hansen and McNeal (1999)
observed teachers in twelve middle schools in
Forsyth County in the United States. They
found that the teachers observed focused on
 Prevention Research Evaluation Report
information, particularly in relation to the health
effects of drug use, and paid minimal attention
to resistance skills, clarification of values and
normative education. The teachers tended to
emphasise alcohol and tobacco and, to a
lesser extent, cannabis. Despite having a low
rate of usage among students, cocaine was
discussed 20 per cent of the time and
amphetamines and inhalants were rarely
mentioned. The teachers were found to be
very individual in their approaches, in the
drugs they concentrated on and in the life skills
they included. The researchers (Hansen and
McNeal) concluded that, if their findings were
typical of schools elsewhere, drug education
would fail to make a long-term impact on drug-
use behaviours.
Hansen and McNeal (1999) recommended
building programs that give full consideration
to research-based prevention strategies. They
also suggested a focus on increasing teachers’
conceptual understandings of drug use and
prevention and on common patterns in the
onset of drug use and experimentation. In
addition, teachers needed training in the
components of the program that have been
chosen specifically for their effect on mediating
variables associated with drug use, such that
these components are not omitted. It seems
that teachers need support and access to good
materials to work with, and that this support
from a school organisational level would be
important.
Targetted versus universal
(whole-population) interventions
Most studies evaluating drug education
emanate from the United States, where the
focus is on universal strategies to prevent or
delay the onset of drug use. There have been
few intervention programs targetting young
people from different social and cultural
backgrounds at different stages of their drug
use, despite a growing recognition that
intervention effectiveness needs to be
evaluated separately in different populations
and tailored for different groups (White & Pitts
1998).
Page 4 of 9
Number 3 November 2002
While there are many studies of drug use in
the school aged, there are few studies relating
to the progression of drug use into young
adulthood and the factors associated with
vulnerability and resistance during this time
(White & Pitts 1998). Such knowledge of the
‘where, when and why’ drugs are being used,
and the meaning drug use has to the user at
different stages, will be necessary in the
design of intervention programs targetted at
specific population groups.
Although more research is needed, the
studies that have examined this question tend
to find that drug education can be effective, not
just for the students who are not using drugs at
the start of the program, but also for others
who are. The Alcohol Misuses Prevention
Study (AMPS, University of Michigan) involved
seven lessons in Grade 7 and 8, using role-
play to teach specific rather than universal
strategies to resist pressures to use particular
drugs. Maggs and Schulenberg (1998)
examined the success of the program in
altering—from early to middle adolescence—
drinking behaviour, including the direction of
alcohol use and misuse, reasons to drink and
reasons not to drink. Results indicated that,
while AMPS may alter a young person’s
development with regards to drug use, the
effect was modified if the young person had
prior experience of unsupervised drinking. For
students who had engaged in unsupervised
drinking, AMPS slowed down the growth of
alcohol misuse and reduced the reasons to
drink. The implication was that the program
was a positive intervention for students who
were at risk of developing alcohol problems
later on. The program was also effective in
discouraging alcohol use among non-users.
The authors suggested that another goal for
prevention research might be not to focus on
why a particular program worked, but for whom
it worked and why.
Project ALERT (Bell, Ellickson & Harrison
1993) was reviewed by White and Pitts (1998)
because it examined the effectiveness of the
program on both young people who were non-
users and also with young people who had
already used drugs. Non-users, in the short
 Prevention Research Evaluation Report
term, showed more gains than users. In
another study (Johnson et al. 1990), however,
researchers looked at the effectiveness of the
intervention for young people who had prior
use of drugs, and found the program equally
effective for both groups.
Opening Doors, a program aimed at
preventing or reducing drug use and deviant
behaviour in 167 high-risk young people in
transition from primary to secondary school,
was assessed by DeWitt et al. (2000). While
the follow-up looked only at the short-term
effects, participants reported less frequent
drinking, cannabis use, non-prescribed
tranquilliser use, self-reported theft and
improved attitudes towards school. In the list of
the possible reasons for the program’s
success, the authors cite high retention rates
during the 12 months of the program,
recruitment of community health care
professionals to work with teachers, a
promotion of warm parent–child, peer and
teacher relationships, support from the whole
school and an emphasis on building life skills.
The Opening Doors approach is promising, but
due to several limitations in the study (for
example, the non-random inclusion of schools)
it requires a more rigorous evaluation.
Harm-minimisation drug
education
In contrast to the United States, Australia and
Europe have more of a focus on harm-
minimisation strategies for drug education.
Many of the prevention programs from the
United States aim for total abstinence from
drug use and therefore evaluate the success of
programs in terms of a statistically significant
delay in onset of use. However, recent
Western Australian research (McBride et al.
2000) supports the view that school-based
drug education based on a harm-minimisation
framework can be effective in reducing alcohol
use. Harm-minimisation approaches often
introduce students to concepts such as
recommended levels for alcohol use and
strategies for avoiding contexts where drug
use may be harmful.
Page 5 of 9
Number 3 November 2002
Health education as part of a
community approach
In some cases, drug education programs are
conducted as one component in a broader set
of community activities aimed at reducing
alcohol and drug use. This type of approach to
drug education is appealing, because it links to
evidence that drug use is influenced by the
cumulative number of risk factors to which
young people are exposed. By exposing young
people to a wide-range of prevention activities,
intervention planners hope to reduce a greater
number of risk factors.
Project Northland is a well-known
community program that has been
implemented in Minnesota in the United States
to reduce youth alcohol use. As one com-
ponent of this program, a social-influences,
health-education curriculum was provided from
Grade 6 through to Grade 9 which demon-
strated lower rates of alcohol use (Klepp, Perry
& Kelder 1995). These effects tended to
decline in the years following, so that by Grade
12 there were few significant effects. These
findings suggest that the common observation
that educational impacts wane over time may
also apply to interventions run in the context of
wider community intervention activities.
Effectiveness of drug education
and the importance of
evaluation
There is good evidence that school-based
education programs, targetting tobacco,
alcohol and other drugs and using social-
learning principles, can be implemented with
booster sessions in later years. There is also
good evidence that drug education programs
produce changes, not just in knowledge and
attitudes about alcohol and other drug use, but
also in drug-use behaviours. The challenge is
to ensure programs are informed by current
scientific knowledge and adequately resourced
to achieve their potential for behavioural
change. Part 2 explores the extent to which
practitioners in Victoria consider that drug-
 Prevention Research Evaluation Report
education practices are likely to achieve
behavioural change.
PART 2
PRACTITIONER PERSPECTIVES
Current practice in secondary
school drug education
As a complement to the literature review of
formal, classroom-based drug education, staff
at the Centre for Youth Drug Studies (CYDS)
at the Australian Drug Foundation interviewed
eleven key informants, namely teachers,
consultants and policy developers, in order to
identify differing perspectives on the current
state of practice in Victoria. An interview
schedule of eight main questions was drawn
up for each respondent, with each question
having a number of sub-questions that were
modified as appropriate to the type of
practitioner being interviewed.
Effectiveness of drug education
and evaluation
Findings from our interviews demonstrated a
number of tensions between the possibilities
for drug education emerging from the research
and the possibilities articulated by
practitioners. Because there is little
behavioural evaluation, practitioners in
Victorian prevention education remain
unconvinced about the possibilities of real
change in the behaviour of young people.
Interview subjects were varied in their opinion
as to how effective drug education is in
secondary schools. Teachers and consultants
tended to argue that the effectiveness of drug
education depended on how ‘effectiveness’
was defined and measured. If it was defined as
an increase in knowledge about drug use, a
change in attitude or a diminished number of
drug incidents, teachers and consultants
judged it to be effective. However, if effec-
tiveness means encompassing change in an
individual’s behaviour, they argued that it is
almost impossible to make a judgement about
whether this has occurred. Schools tended to
ensure effectiveness of drug education
Page 6 of 9
Number 3 November 2002
programs by using recognised resources such
as Get Real (DESS 1995), Get Wise (Cahill,
Stafford & Shaw 2000)and Rethinking Drinking
(Youth Research Centre 1997).
Interview findings suggest that most
secondary school drug education programs
are not formally evaluated, nor is there a
strong understanding of what is meant by
‘evaluation’. Teachers indicated that staff
meetings and curriculum reviews were the
principle methods used to evaluate their
programs. Academics and consultants, on the
other hand, believed schools were only
evaluating programs at a superficial level.
Time and money were the most common
impediments to schools formally evaluating
their drug education programs. Some
practitioners suggested that schools did not
consider evaluation to be as important, and
begrudge putting time and money into it
because it diverted resources from the
implementation of the program itself.
On a positive note, schools involved with
the Department of Education & Training’s
current ‘Effective Drug Education’ project were
eager to employ the project’s final instruments
to evaluate their programs.
Supervised peer leadership
Most interviewees working in schools reported
having implemented some form of supervised
peer leadership. Some schools reported using
specific peer-led programs such as ‘Creating
Conversations’. The importance of using peer
leadership as part of an integrated drug
education program was emphasised by
several interviewees.
Although it was considered an approach
‘fraught with difficulty’, most respondents
agreed that supervised peer leadership has a
place within secondary schools. However, all
interviewees argued that peer-led programs
required a high level of organisation to get
them ‘off the ground’, and that participating
students needed extensive training before they
could act as peer leaders. Even then, the
students required further guidance and support
from teachers and other school staff.
 Prevention Research Evaluation Report
Respondents identified poor programs as
those that do not have high quality training,
real clarity in terms of why they exist, high level
of teacher support, and some resources. As
well as organised peer leadership, some
interviewees also mentioned the effectiveness
of incidental peer leadership
Interactive strategies
The majority of respondents agreed with the
literature that suggests that interactive
strategies, such as scenarios, role-plays,
group research and classroom discussions,
were the most effective way to teach drug
education. Teachers and consultants valued
these strategies because they get students to
process information through the lens of their
own experience, rather than something they
have just been told (consultant). Despite
recognising the value of interactive strategies,
respondents also suggested that there were
occasions when a didactic approach worked
best; for example, in a class in which the
teacher or students lacked confidence or
where there were discipline problems.
Normative information
The interviewees tended to agree that it is
useful to incorporate normative information in a
drug education program, and many are already
doing this.
Most respondents indicated that normative
information aids kids in giving up the myth that
everyone is using drugs. Statistics indicating
drug usage among students of a similar age
group or in an Australian setting have more
credibility than statistics about drug use in the
United States or Europe.
Normative information can be used to
contextualise drug use, but it can also be
counterproductive or of little benefit if it runs
the risk of being interpreted as condoning drug
use. It has been suggested that normative
information should be presented in a balanced
manner, such as young people’s drug
consumption should be compared with the
alcohol and other drug consumption levels of
adults.
Page 7 of 9
Number 3 November 2002
Sequential, progressive
continuing programs in
Victorian schools
To what extent are drug education programs in
Victorian schools designed to be develop-
mentally appropriate, progressive and
sequential? The teachers interviewed believed
that the programs in their schools were, in fact,
‘sequential, progressive and continuing’.
Consultants were less sure. Put simply, it was
suggested that some schools provided
sequential, progressive and continuing drug
education programs, while others didn’t. One
consultant said in a sort of nebulous sort of
way, they sort of relate to where the kids are
at. Using resources like Get Real or Get Wise
they employ sequential strategies.
Impediments to the implementation of
‘sequential, progressive and continuing
programs’— as recommended by
researchers—were various, but the main
difficulty was that health education was not
considered part of the core curriculum.
Consequently, there was no agreed or
specified curriculum. The problem increases in
senior years, when health education is offered
only as an elective. Other difficulties cited in
maintaining these ‘best practice’ programs
included the high turnover of drug education
teachers, teachers feeling unqualified to teach
drug education and the deficiency in formal
training in the subject. Because of the lack of
training, one respondent said teachers felt
inadequate, even fearing that the students
would know more than they would.
Alignment with the individual
school drug education strategy
All respondents were unequivocal in their
emphasis of the positive impact of the
Victorian Individual School Drug Education
Strategy (ISDES) process on raising the profile
of drug education in schools, as well as in the
way schools approached drug education.
 Prevention Research Evaluation Report
Respondents said the ISDES process
emphasised a broader network of support from
the Department of Education & Training, by
reinforcing the message that schools and
teachers were not alone in delivering drug
education.
Informants to the CYDS interviews agreed
that within most government and independent
schools the drug education curriculum was
aligned with the classroom component of the
ISDES. At least 50 per cent of Catholic
schools, according to a consultant, were
employing the curriculum strategies outlined in
the ISDES document.
Final comments from Victorian
practitioners
One researcher said she would like
acknowledgment, at a political level, that some
students use drugs, and that harm
minimisation was therefore a necessity. Many
expressed a desire for drug education to be
placed in the context of personal development,
alongside resilience, connectedness, positive
self-esteem, families and individual
This report was prepared for the DrugInfo Clearinghouse by the
Centre for Adolescent Health and the Centre for Youth Drug Studies, Melbourne
Page 8 of 9
Number 3 November 2002
differences. Other practitioners’ wish lists
included consistency in drug educator training
and better evaluation of programs, particularly
by making the evaluation process an integral
part of the program.
Conclusion
A number of research studies have evaluated
the effectiveness of drug education. Through
these studies, critical program elements are
gradually being identified. The existing
evidence suggests that drug education
programs have the potential to contribute to
reductions in harmful youth drug use. In order
to realise their potential, activities need to be
based on appropriate curriculum, be well
resourced and integrated within a wider set of
ongoing intervention activities. Interviews with
practitioners suggest that progress is being
made toward establishing an effective
framework for drug education in Victoria.
Although many of the conditions appear to be
in place to achieve effective practice, the lack
of evaluation is a critical gap that needs to be
addressed.
 Prevention Research Evaluation Report
Number 3 November 2002

Hansen WB & McNeal RB Jr 1999 ‘Drug education

References practice: Results of an observational study’, Health
Education Research 14(1), 85–97
Ballard R Gillespie A & Irwin r 1994 Principles for drug
Johnson CA, Pentz MA, Weber MD, Dwyer, JH, Baer N,
education in schools. Belconnen, ACT: University of
MacKinnon DP, Hansen, WB & Flay BR 1990 ‘Relative
Canberra
effectiveness of comprehensive community
Bell RM, Ellickson PL & Harrison ER 1993 ‘Do drug
programming for drug abuse prevention with high-risk
prevention effects persist into high school? How project
and low-risk adolescents’, Journal of Consulting &
ALERT did with ninth graders’, Preventive Medicine 22,
Clinical Psychology 58, 447–56
463–83
Kelder SH, Perry CL, Klepp KI & Lytle, LL 1994
Botvin GJ, Baker E, Filazzola AD & Botvin EM, 1990 ‘A
‘Longitudinal tracking of adolescent smoking, physical
cognitive–behavioural approach to substance abuse
activity and food choice behaviour’, American Journal of
prevention: One year follow up’, Addictive Behaviours
Public Health 84(7), 1121–6
15, 47–63
Klepp KI, Perry C & Kelder S 1995 ‘Alcohol and marijuana
Botvin GJ, Schinke S & Orlandi MA 1995 ‘School-based
use among adolescents: Long-term outcomes of the
health promotion: Substance abuse and sexual
class of 1989 study’, Annals of Behavioural Medicine
behaviour’, Applied & Preventive Psychology 4, 167–84
17(1), 19–24
Cahill H, Stafford K & Shaw G 2000 Get wise—working on
Lloyd C, Joyce R, Hurry J & Aston M 2000 ‘The
illicits in school education, Melbourne: Department of
effectiveness of primary school drug education’, Drugs,
Education & Training
education, prevention and policy 7 2, 109–26
Coggans N & Watson A 1995 ‘Drug education:
Maggs JJ & Schulenberg, J 1998 ‘Reasons to drink and
Approaches, effectiveness and delivery’, Drugs:
not to drink: Altering trajectories of drinking through an
Education, prevention and policy 2 (3), 211–24
alcohol misuse prevention program’, Applied
DESS (Directorate of School Education), Bellhouse R,
Developmental Science 2(1), 48–60
Rodrigues A & Roberts P 1995 Get real-a harm
McBride N, Midford R, Farringdon F & Phillips, M 2000
minimisation approach to drug education, Drug
‘Early results of a school alcohol harm minimisation
Education for Schools Project, Melbourne: Department
intervention: the school health and alcohol harm
of Education & Training
reduction project [SHAHRP]’, Addiction 95 (7), 1021–42
De Witt DJ, Steep B, Silverman G, Stevens-Lavigne A,
Midford R, Lenton S & Hancock L 2000 A critical review
Ellis K, Smythe C, Rye BJ, Braun K & Wood E 2000
and analysis: Cannabis education in schools, 1–47,
‘Evaluating an in-school drug prevention program for at-
NSW: Department of Education and Training
risk youth’, The Alberta Journal of Education Research
Midford R, Snow P & Lenton S 2001 School-based illicit
XLVI (2), 117–33
drug education programs: A critical review and analysis.
Dielman TE 1994 ‘School-based research on the
RFT 637, 1–80, Melbourne: Department of Employment,
prevention of adolescent alcohol use and misuse:
Education, Training and Youth Affairs
Methodological issues and advances’, Journal of
Tobler NS & Stratton HH 1997 ‘Effectiveness of school-
Research on Adolescence 4(2), 271–93
based drug prevention programs: A meta-analysis of the
Dusenbury L & Falco M 1995 ‘Eleven components of
research’, The Journal of Primary Prevention 18 (10),
effective drug abuse prevention curricula’, Journal of
71–128
School Health 65 (10), 420–2
White D & Pitts M 1998 ‘Educating young people about
Gorman DM 1996 ‘Do school-based social skills training
drugs: A systematic review’, Addiction 93 (10) 1475–87
programs prevent alcohol use among young people?’,
Youth Research Centre 1997 Rethinking drinking—You’re
Addiction Research 4(2), 191–210
in control: A harm minimisation alcohol education
Hansen WB & Graham JW 1991 ‘Preventive alcohol,
program for secondary students, teachers and parents,
marijuana and cigarette use among adolescents: Peer
Australian Council for Health, Physical Education &
pressure resistance training versus establishing
Recreation
conservative norms Preventive Medicine 20(3), 414–30
Hansen WB 1992 ‘School-based substance abuse
prevention: A review of the state of the art in curriculum,
1980–1990’, Health Education Research 7, 403–30

Page 9 of 9

View publication stats