Effective prevention programs for tobacco use.

Abstract

Several types of prevention programs have shown effects on delaying or reducing youth tobacco use for periods of 1-5 years or more. These are referred to as evidence-based programs. However, they are not widely used. At the same time, with few exceptions, adolescent tobacco use rates have been stable or have increased in the 1990s. The challenge for prevention is to identify critical components shared by effective prevention programs--that is, components most associated with effect, and then to evaluate factors that are most likely to promote adoption, implementation, and diffusion of effective programs across schools and communities in the United States. Effective tobacco prevention programs focus on counteracting social influences on tobacco use, include either direct training of youth in resistance and assertiveness skills or, for policy and community organization interventions, direct or indirect (through adults) training in community activism, and are mainly theory-based, with an emphasis on three levels of theory: (a) personal (attitudes, normative expectations, and beliefs); (b) social (social or group behavior); and/or (c) environmental (communications and diffusion). Program effects increase with the use of booster sessions, standardized implementor training and support, multiple program components, and multiple levels of theory. Overall, multi-component community programs that have a school program as a basis, with supportive parent, media, and community organization components, have shown the most sustained effects on tobacco use. Positive program adoption by the school or community, extent and quality of program implementation, and existence of credible networks of leaders to promote the program are critical for any effect. Research on predictors of adoption, implementation, and diffusion of evidence-based programs is scanty relative to outcome research. In addition, more research is needed on why multi-component programs appear to be most effective, whether effect is related to existing tobacco policies, whether prevention programs have differential effects on youth with different natural trajectories of tobacco use, and whether prevention programs can be used to recruit smokers into cessation programs.