Several studies have suggested that peer-led drug prevention programs are more effective than adult-led programs, but the evidence is not conclusive. In this article the results are presented of a meta-analysis of studies that compare drug prevention programs led by peers to the same programs led by adults. Twelve studies were identified in a systematic literature search. The quality of these studies was not optimal, and the interventions and target groups differed considerably among studies. Overall, peer-led programs were found to be somewhat more effective than adult-led programs (standardized difference d: 0.24). Large differences between studies were found, with some studies indicating greater effects for peer-led programs and other studies showing greater effects for adult-led programs. It is concluded that the effectiveness of a prevention program is determined by several characteristics of the programs. The leader may constitute one of those characteristics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MellanbyA. R.ReesJ. B., and TrippJ. H., Peer-Led and Adult-Led School Health Education: A Critical Review of Available Comparative Research, Health Education Research, 15, pp. 533–545, 2000.
2.
Health Education Authority, Peers in Partnership, Author, London, 1993.
3.
LinseyB. J., Peer Education: A View Point and Critique, Journal of the American College of Health, 45, pp. 187–189, 1997.
4.
RosenthalR. and DiMatteoM. R., Meta-Analysis: Recent Developments in Quantitative Methods for Literature Review, Annual Review of Psychology, 52, pp. 59–82, 2001.
5.
ToblerN. S.RoonaM. R.OchshornP.MarshallD. G.StrekeA. V., and StackpoleK. M., School-Based Adolescent Drug Prevention Programs: 1998 Meta-Analysis, Journal of Primary Prevention, 20, pp. 275–336, 2000.
6.
LipseyM. W., Design Sensitivity; Statistical Power for Experimental Research, Sage, Newbury Park, 1990.
7.
RosenthalR. and RubinD., A Simple, General Purpose Display of Magnitude of Experimental Effect, Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, pp. 166–169, 1982.
8.
ClarkeJ. H.MacPhersonB.HolmesD. R., and JonesR., Reducing Adolescent Smoking: A Comparison of Peer-Led, Teacher-Led, and Expert Interventions, Journal of School Health, 56, pp. 102–106, 1986.
9.
TelchM. J.MillerL. M.KillenJ. D.CookeS., and MacCobyN., Social Influence Approach to Smoking Prevention: The Effects of Videotape Delivery With and Without Same-Age Peer Leader Participation, Addictive Behaviors, 15, pp. 21–28, 1990.
10.
PrinceF., The Relative Effectiveness of a Peer-Led and Adult-Led Smoking Intervention Program, Adolescence, 30, pp. 187–194, 1995.
11.
JohnsonC. A.HansenW. B.CollinsL. M., and GrahamJ. W., High-School Smoking Prevention: Results of a Three-Year Longitudinal Study, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 9, pp. 439–452, 1986.
12.
LuepkerR. V.JohnsonC. A.MurrayD. M., and PechacekT. F., Prevention of Cigarette Smoking: Three-Year Follow-Up of an Education Program for Youth, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 6, pp. 53–62, 1983.
13.
ArmstrongB. K.De KlerkN. H.SheanR. E.DunnD. A., and DolinP. J., Influence of Education and Advertising on the Uptake of Smoking by Children, Medical Journal of Australia, 152, pp. 117–124, 1990.
14.
BotvinG. J.BakerE.RenickN. L.FilazollaA. D., and BotvinE. M., A Cognitive-Behavioral Approach to Substance Abuse Prevention, Addictive Behaviors, 9, pp. 137–147, 1984.
15.
BotvinG. J.BakerE.FilazollaA. D., and BotvinE. M., A Cognitive-Behavioral Approach to Substance Abuse Prevention: One-Year Follow-Up, Addictive Behaviors, 15, pp. 47–63, 1990.
16.
PerryC. L.GrantM.ErnbergG.FlorenxanoR. U.LangdonM. C.MyeniA. D.WaahlbergR.BergS.AnderssonK.FisherK. J.Blaze-TempleD.CrossD.SaundersB.JacobsD. R., and SchmidT., WHO Collaborative Study on Alcohol Education and Young People: Outcomes of a Four-Country Pilot Study, International Journal of the Addictions, 24, pp. 1145–1171, 1989.
17.
PerryC., Prevention of Alcohol Use and Abuse in Adolescence: Teacher vs Peer Led Intervention, Crisis, 10, pp. 52–61, 1989.
18.
ArkinR. M.RoemhildH. F.JohnsonC. A.LuepkerR. V., and MurrayD. M., The Minnesota Smoking Prevention Program, Journal of School Health, 51, pp. 611–616, 1981.
19.
MurrayD. M.RichardsP. S.LuepkerR. V., and JohnsonC. A., The Prevention of Cigarette Smoking in Children: Two- and Three-Year Follow-Up Comparisons of Four Prevention Strategies, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 10, pp. 595–611, 1987.
20.
MurrayD. M.LuepkerR. V.JohnsonC. A., and MittelmarkM. B., The Prevention of Cigarette Smoking in Children: A Comparison of Four Strategies, Journal of Applied and Social Psychology, 14, pp. 274–288, 1984.
21.
MurrayD. M.Davis-HearnM.GoldmanA. I.PirieP., and LuepkerR. V., Four- and Five-Year Follow-Up Results from Four Seventh-Grade Smoking Prevention Strategies, Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 11, pp. 395–405, 1988.
22.
BellR. M.EllicksonP. L., and HarrisonE. R., Do Drug Prevention Effects Persist into High School? How Project ALERT Did with Ninth Graders, Preventive Medicine, 22, pp. 463–483, 1993.
23.
PettitiD. B., Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine, Oxford University Press, New York, 1994.
24.
CooperH. and HedgesL. V., The Handbook for Research Synthesis, Russel Sage Foundation, New York, 1994.
25.
HedgesL. and OlkinI., Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis, Academic Press, Orlando, 1985.
26.
SchwarzerR., Meta-Analysis Programs, Freie Universität, Berlin, 1989.
