A preliminary study of the population-adjusted effectiveness of substance abuse prevention programming: towards...

The Institute of Medicine distinguishes between programs based on who is targeted: the entire population (universal), those at risk (selective), or persons exhibiting the early stages of use or related problem behavior (indicated). Evaluations suggest that although universal programs can be effective in reducing and preventing substance use, selective and indicated programs are both more effective and have greater cost-benefit ratios. This paper tests these assumptions by comparing the impact of these program types in reducing and preventing substance use at the individual level (i.e., those exposed to intervention services) and in the population (i.e., those exposed and not exposed to intervention services). A meta-analysis was performed on 43 studies of 25 programs to examine program comparability across IOM categories. When examining unadjusted effect sizes at the individual level, universal programs were modestly more successful in reducing tobacco use, but selective and indicated programs were modestly more successful in reducing alcohol and marijuana use. When adjusted to the population level, the average effect sizes for selective and indicated programs were reduced by approximately half. At the population level, universal programs were more successful in reducing tobacco and marijuana use and selective and indicated programs were more successful in reducing alcohol use. Editors' Strategic Implications: the authors' focus on the public health value of a prevention strategy is compelling and provides a model for analyses of other strategies and content areas.