Background
Methods
Identification of studies and inclusion criteria
Evidence-based outcome
Publication characteristics
Age of child / children
Substance consumption of parent(s)
Type of intervention
Quality criteria
Levels of evidence | |
---|---|
Ia | Evidence from a systematic review or meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT’s) |
Ib | Evidence from at least one RCT |
IIa | Evidence from at least one well-designed controlled study without randomization |
IIb | Evidence from at least one well-designed quasi-experimental study, such as a cohort study |
III | Evidence from a well-designed non-experimental descriptive studies, such as comparative studies, correlation studies, case–control studies and case series |
IV | Expert committee reports, opinions and/or clinical experience of respected authorities |
Criteria and their scores | Maximum score | |
---|---|---|
1 | Controlled assignment to treatment conditions (random assignment, matching of total groups or controlled design, without randomization (2.5) matching in pairs) | 5 |
2 | Pre-post-measurement of change | 5 |
3 | Sample size N = 50-100 (0.5) N = 100-150 (1) N > 150 (1.5) | 1.5 |
4 | No contamination of major independent variables: Most important independent variable is valid, i.e., parental substance use proven (2), very likely (1), program implemented by professional staff (3) | 5 |
5 | Appropriate statistical analyses | 1 |
6 | Data collected via self-assessment and expert interviews | 1 |
7 | Follow-up in months 1–3 (0.5), 4–6 (1), 7–12 (1.5) 13–18 (2), 19–24 (2.5) >24 (3) | 3 |
8 | Evidence of treatment adherence: probably (0.5), certainly, as stated by the authors (1), verifiable (1.5) | 1.5 |
9 | Multiple change indices | 1 |
10 | Multiple vantage points for assessing outcome, multiple criterion measurement | 1 |
11 | Quality of instruments reported | 1 |
12 | Simultaneous data collection for the control group; Non-simultaneous data collection for the control group (0.5) | 1 |
13 | Outcome assessment: Non-responder – improvement (0.5)Deterioration – improvement (1) | 1 |
14 | Therapist-investigator nonequivalence: examiners not involved in program delivery | 1 |
15 | Treatment dropouts / intent-to-treat analyses | 1 |
Effect Sizes
Results
Study | Name of intervention | Target group and focus of intervention | Format | Access to participants / recruitment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
School-based Interventions
| |||||
1 | [65] | Stress Management and Alcohol Awareness Program (SMAAP) | School-based group program for 4th-, 5th- and 6th-grade students with problem-drinking parents. Focus: self-esteem, coping behaviors, alcohol expectancies, problem solving, social support. Didactics: theory, practical exercises, homework assignments, complementary “personal trainer component” | 8 weekly 90-min sessions | Children identified their parents’ problems after watching a relevant video. Interested children were invited to participate in the program. Parental consent was obtained. |
2 | [66] | Friends in Need | School-based group program for primary school pupils from drug-involved families. Focus: self-esteem, coping behavior, perception of emotions, group affiliation, „4 C’s” (“you didn’t cause it, you can’t control it; you can’t cure it, you can be okay.”) Didactics: theory, practical exercises, structured sessions, rituals | 8 90-min sessions | After a discussion group on feelings about drug use, teachers from three schools that were located in drug-involved neighborhoods identified children whom they believed to be affected by parental drug use. Parental consent was obtained. |
3 | [68] | School-Based-Support-Groups (SBSG) | School-based group program for students from grades 9 through 12. Focus: knowledge on substance abuse and its impact, family relations, coping strtegies. Didactics: theory, practical exercises, mutual support | 14 weekly 60-min sessions | A school-based health center and/or a high school counselor identified students reporting substance use in their family (screening question: “Does anyone in your family drink or take drugs so much that it worries you?”). Parental consent was not obtained. |
4 | [67] | SBSG | See (3), slightly different format (see format) | 15 45-min sessions | The program was introduced by school personnel; interested students were welcome to participate. |
5 | [69] | Children Having Opportunities in Courage, Esteem and Success (CHOICES) | School-based three-component program for 3rd- and 4th-grade students: 1. “School Support Group”: group meetings. 2. “Healthy Lifestyle Peer Mentors”: ongoing mentoring program for participants; peer mentors received training and attended group meeting. 3. private lessons / homework assistance. Focus: emotions identity and family, coping strategies. Didactics: discussions, videos, practical exercises | 11 weekly 60-min sessions, weekly individual 30-min sessions with mentors | A drug related video was shown, children answered two screening questions, children screened positive were interviewed by a student counselor, who assessed program eligibility. Parental consent was obtained. |
6 | [70] | CHOICES | See (5) | See (5) | See (5) |
Community-based Interventions
| |||||
7 | [72] | Teen-Club | Group-program for female teenagers with drug-involved families and a lack of social and family support. Focus: problem solving, health education, social behavior, home visits for crisis intervention. Didactics: theory, motivational leisure activities | Weekly 90-min meetings within two years | Offered by a youth center with a high risk population, no accurate information regarding recruitment provided. |
8 | [71] | Teen-Club | See (7) | See (7) | See (7) |
Family-based Interventions
| |||||
9 | [73] | Focus on Families (FOF) | Family-based program for families with methadone treated parents, sessions with groups of families (partly with children, partly without), combined with home-based case management. Focus: relapse prevention, stabilization and improvement of family management practices. Didactics: motivational elements, discussion, practical exercises, periodical buffer calls for 9 months after program end | 32 biweekly 90-min sessions (12 with children) for 16 weeks | Participating families were recruited at two methadone clinics in Seattle. |
10 | [74] | FOF | See (9) | See (9) | See (9) |
11 | [64] | Strengthening Families Program (SFP, Utah-Version). | Canadian adaption of the SFP 6–12 Year family based program, developed by Kumpfer & DeMarsh (1983) in 1982, tested with children aged 9 to 12 with at least one parent addicted to alcohol in Ontario and Buffalo, NY. Focus: Strengthening individuals as well as family structures. Didactics: theory, practical exercises, videos, session split into children’s / parent’s groups and joint family sessions | 14 weekly 2-3-hour sessions | Recruited from multiple alcohol treatment agencies and community agencies for high-risk families in Ontario and Buffalo. |
12 | [63] | Family Com-petence Pro-gram (FCP). | Spanish adaptation of the SFP 6–12 Years, see (11). Family-based program for parents and children (aged 6 to 14). | 14 weekly 2–3 hour sessions | Interested drug-using parents in the final phase of addiction treatment, and their children. |
13 | [75] | Safe Haven Program | Adaptation of the SFP (Utah version), see (11) for inner city African-American substance-using families with children aged 6 to 12. Focus: parent training, children’s and family skills training. Didactics: practical exercises, homework, theory | 12 weekly sessions | Parents were recruited at a residential drug and alcohol treatment center. Potential participants were interviewed twice to assess their level of interest and potential commitment. Consent of all family members was obtained. |
No | Program | Evidence class | Design quality | Rank | RCT | Pre post | FU | Sample size | Age M | Setting | Dose | Key significant findings in favor of children in treatment groups | Effect sizes r |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | SMAAP | Ia | 24,5 | 3 | Y | Y | Y | >200 | 10.1 | School | 8 x 90 min | knowledge, coping, social behavior | .54 / .24 / .12 |
2 | Friends in Need | Ib | 23 | 5a | Y | Y | N | >200 | 3-4th grade | School | 8 x 90 min | social behavior | qualitative data |
3 | SBSG | Ib | 23 | 5b | Y | Y | N | 100-200 | 15.5 | School | 14 x 60 min | knowledge, coping (f) | .37 / .54 (f) |
4 | SBSG | III | 9 | 11 | N | N | N | <50 | ? | School | 15 x 45 min | knowledge, coping, school performance, social behavior | qualitative data |
5 | CHOICES | Ib | 22,5 | 6 | Y | Y | Y | <50 | 8.8 | School | 11 x 60 min | self-esteem, school performance | .43 / .52 |
6 | CHOICES | III | 10,5 | 10 | N | N | N | 50-100 | 3-4th grade | School | 11 x 60 min | social behavior | qualitative data |
7 | Teen-Club | III | 14,5 | 9 | N | N | N | <50 | 18-22 | Youth Center | 90 min over 2 years | self-esteem, social behavior | qualitative data |
8 | Teen-Club | IV | 8 | 12 | N | N | N | <50 | ? | Youth Center | 90 min over 2 years | self-esteem, social behavior | qualitative data |
9 | FOF | Ib | 27 | 2 | Y | Y | Y | 100-200 | 10.4 | Methadone clinic | 32 x 90 min | family functioning | .22 |
10 | FOF | Ib | 27,5 | 1 | Y | Y | Y | 100-200 | 22 | FU interview | 32 x 90 min | lower SUD risk (m), delayed age of onset (m) at FU | OR = 0.80, r = .39 |
11 | SFP | Ib | 23,5 | 4 | Y | Y | N | >200 | 11 | Parents in outpatient treatment | 14 x 120–180 min | social behavior | .11 |
12 | FCP | IIa | 20,5 | 7 | N | Y | N | <50 | 10.6 | Parents in outpatient treatment | 14 x 120–180 min | knowledge, social behavior, family functioning | .70 / .44 / .44 |
13 | Safe Haven Program | IIb | 19 | 8 | N | Y | N | 100-200 | 7.6 | Parents in outpatient treatment | 12 x (?) min | externalizing / internalizing symptoms, family functioning | .34 / .29 / .29 |
Study | Name of intervention | Evidence class / design quality | Research design | Sample | Outcome measures | Significant results for participants | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
School-based Interventions
| |||||||
1 | [65] | Stress Management and Alcohol Awareness Program (SMAAP) | Ia / 24,5 | Randomized-controlled design, pre-post-tests, 4 points of measurement, 2 wait-list control groups, questionnaire study, self-assessment, and assessment by others (teachers). Analysis: ANCOVA, effect sizes. Limits: recruitment based on self-selection procedures (target group unclear), no consistent intent-to-treat analysis, follow-up only for cohort 1 | N = 271 at t0 (26% dropout), randomized assignment to three cohorts. characteristics: age M = 10,1 years, 60% female, 50% ethnical minorities | standardized / validated measures | improved program knowledge. improved emotion-focused coping (self-assessment). improved problem-solving ability and social competency (teacher rating). no difference with or without personal trainer component |
2 | [66] | Friends in need | Ib / 23 | Randomized-controlled study design, pre-post-tests, 3 points of measurement, wait-list control group, questionnaire study, self-assessment and assessment by others (teachers and group leaders). Analysis: no information provided. Limits: eligible children identified by school personnel; researchers were involved in delivering the program | N = 206 children (no dropouts reported). assignment to one of 16 groups, 37% female, age: 3rd to 4th grade students, 70% Afro-Americans, 29% Caucasian | standardized / validated measures | pre-test: unusually high levels for loneliness and social isolation compared to norm populations. reduced physical aggression for the intervention group compared to controls. no other significant treatment effects |
3 | [68] | School-Based-Support- Groups (SBSG) | Ib / 23 | Randomized-controlled study design, pre-post-tests, wait-list control group, blinded analysis, questionnaire study, self-assessment and assessment by others (by teachers and group leaders). Analysis: t-test, Chi²-test. Limits: Assignment to groups based on teachers’ assessment, liberal level of significance (0.10), analysis of the relative changes only, no dropout analysis, only self assessments, no effect sizes. | N = 109 at t0, (17 % dropout), age: M = 15,5 years, sample. characteristics (post-test): 62% female, 56% ethnical minorities. | standardized / validated measures | improved addiction-related knowledge in the study group, no significant group differences in substance use pre“ valences. improved coping strategies and social integration in the study group (females only). increased medical complaints and diminished social integration in the study group (males only). |
4 | [67] | SBSG | III / 9 | Qualitative design. Analysis: ethnographical methods. Limits: no quantitative data, no objective data collection, very small sample size, self-registration. | N = 21. sample characteristics: 67% female, 33% Latin-American | interviews, records | qualitative findings: improvement of social behavior, school performance, coping strategies and knowledge on program content. |
5 | [69] | Children Having Opportunities in Courage, Esteem and Success (CHOICES) | Ib / 22,5 | Randomized-controlled study design, pre-post-tests, 3 points of measurement, questionnaire study. Analysis: ANOVA, t-test. Limits: very small sample from one school, assignment to group by teachers’ assessment, no self-assessment, only group comparisons. | N = 16, randomized group assignment to one of four groups (group 4 = controls). characteristics: M Age = 8,8 years, 56% female, 81,3% white. | standardized / validated measures | increased self-esteem in the group with combined group program and peer mentor training. increased social skills in the group combining program with peer matching. performance at school: significant values in groups 1 and 3. attitude towards substance use improved significantly in all study groups. |
6 | [70] | CHOICES | III / 10,5 | Questionnaire process evaluation study without standardized scales, self assessment and assessment by others. Analysis: no information given. Limits: no controls, no pre-post-tests, no randomization, recruitment based on teachers’ perceptions, dropouts not considered. | N = 60, 3rd and 4th grade students | per fiat measures | self-assessment: improvement in isolation, loneliness, coping strategies and knowledge on program content. assessment by teachers: improvement in attitudes, school performance, social behavior. |
Community-based Interventions
| |||||||
7 | [72] | Teen-Club | III / 14,5 | Retrospective study, questionnaire and interviews, 1 point of measurement five years after enrollment in the program. Analysis: no information given. Limits: very small sample, no pre-post-tests, no information about recruitment and analysis. | N = 12 Afro-American girls between 18 and 22 years | standardized / validated measures, per fiat measures | study group: went to school for a significantly longer time period, had a better chance of getting a job, fewer depressive symptoms, fewer pregnancies, higher frequency of alcohol consumption (no difference in the amount of alcohol consumption) |
8 | [71] | Teen-Club | IV / 8 | Focus group interview, interpretative analysis. Limits: very small sample, purely qualitative survey without any statistical analysis | N = 11 Afro-American girls | interviews | high program contentedness, decreased risky behavior |
Family-based Interventions
| |||||||
9 | [73] | Focus on Families (FOF) | Ib / 27 | Randomized-controlled study design, pre-post-follow-up tests, 3 points of measurement, interviews, random urine sampling. Analysis: ANOVA, ANCOVA, intent-to-treat analysis. Limits: low representativeness, high selectivity: 25 % of the primarily recruited families refused to participate | N = 130 families, children: N = 177, study group: N =95, control group: N = 82, age M = 10,4 years, 77% of parents white, diagnosed substance use (methadone-clinic) | standardized / validated measures, interviews | hardly any differences between study and control group children, improved family behavior in the study group. significant improvements for the parents in the areas parent skills, drug use, deviant peers, and family management |
10 | [74] | FOF | Ib / 27,5 | Follow up of (9), point of measurement 12 years later, structured interviews. Analysis: based on Cox-Model, intent- to-treat analysis. Limits: Only substance consumption was assessed | sub-sample from (9), N = 151 former FOF- or TAU participants were interviewed, characteristics: age M = 22 years, 57% male, comparison to a general population of similar age. | standardized / validated measures | former participants had significantly higher levels of substance use with a lower age of onset compared to a general population sample. reduced risk of developing substance problems for the study group compared with control group (only males) |
11 | [64] | Strengthening Families Program (SFP) | Ib / 23,5 | Randomized-controlled study design, pre-post-tests. Analysis: ANOVA, Intent- to-Treat-Analysis. Limits: no information about recruitment, only one criterion as dependent variable | N = 280 families. study group = 147, controls = 133. characteristics. children’s age M =11 years, 44% female children | standardized / validated measures (not mentioned in the abstract but in the poster that is referred to) | reduction of Oppositional Defiant Disorder Symptoms in the study group compared to the controls from the parents’ perception |
12 | [63] | Family Competence Programme (FCP) | IIa / 20,5 | Quasi-experimental design, pre-post- tests. Analysis: t-test, ANOVA, effect sizes. Limits: small sample, no randomization, only families from “Proyecto Hombre”, effects were mainly based on self- assessments, no information about undesired results or non-respondents, no information about the distribution of substance amounts, no long-term study, no intent-to-treat analysis. | N = 38 children, study group = 22, controls = 16, characteristics: mean age = 10,6 years, parental drug- dependence was diagnosed | standardized / validated measures | family: significant improvement at post-measurement compared to control group in family involvement, communication and family rules, family satisfaction and organization, relationship between parents and children. parents: parenting behaviors and relationship between parents improved. children: problem behaviors were reduced, social skills and program-related knowledge improved |
13 | [75] | Safe Haven Program | IIb / 19 | Quasi-experimental design, pre-post- tests. Analysis: ANOVA. Limits: no randomization, comparison only between high and low drug use groups, no information on the quality of the used instruments, follow-ups are mentioned but not reported. | N = 88 families with one “ targeted” child each. characteristics: mean age = 7,6 years, 44% female children. | standardized / validated measures | high drug use group: improvement of externalizing / internalizing problem behaviors. low drug use group: fewer school problems. total sample: improved family cohesion, less parental drug use |