Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Web-Based Program (POP4Teens) to Prevent Prescription Opioid Misuse Among Adolescents: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prescription opioid (PO) use is common among adolescents in the United States. Despite recent declines from unprecedented peaks in adolescent PO use (eg, in 2012-2013), there is seemingly paradoxical evidence that PO-related consequences (eg, opioid use disorder and overdoses) are increasing. These trends and their possible consequences emphasize the importance of prevention efforts targeting PO misuse. To our knowledge, we have developed the first interactive web-based program (POP4Teens [P4T]) focused specifically on the prevention of PO misuse among adolescents. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of P4T, a web-based program designed to prevent adolescent PO misuse, in comparison with JustThinkTwice (JTT), an active control website, on PO-related attitudes, knowledge, risk perception, and intentions to use. METHODS: We conducted a web-based randomized controlled trial in 2018. A total of 406 adolescents (aged 12-17 years) were randomly assigned to either P4T or JTT. The outcome variables were attitudes, knowledge, and risk perceptions associated with PO misuse, intentions to use POs, and program feedback. Data were collected at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 months. RESULTS: Both programs resulted in significant and sustained improvements in intention to use POs, increased perceived risk, impacted expectancies consistent with prevention, and improved PO refusal skills. P4T produced significantly greater increases in PO-related knowledge than JTT did, and it was reportedly easier to use and more liked. Baseline scores for youth reporting past-year medical use of POs, friends who engage in nonmedical use of POs, and/or poor mental health underscored their at-risk status compared with youth from the other groups. CONCLUSIONS: P4T positively impacted all study variables that are known to prevent PO misuse among teens. Moreover, its web-based nature simplifies the dissemination and implementation of this novel tool designed to help meet the challenges of the evolving national opioid crisis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02737696; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02737696.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".