Skip to main content

Table 4 Study ranking by design quality and key characteristics (Y = yes, N = no, FU = follow-up, min = minutes, f = females, m = males)

From: Selective prevention programs for children from substance-affected families: a comprehensive systematic review

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