MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180141797 · doi:10.2196/26951

A Mobile Phone–Based Life-Skills Training Program for Substance Use Prevention Among Adolescents: Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

2021· article· en· W3180141797 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Severin Haug, Raquel Paz Castro, Andreas Wenger, Michael P Schaub

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialLife skillsSocial cognitive theorySocial skillsPsychologyCluster randomised controlled trialMobile phoneIntervention (counseling)Applied psychologyClinical psychologyMedical educationMedicineComputer scienceDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Life skills are abilities for adaptive and positive behavior that enable individuals to deal effectively with the demands and challenges of everyday life. Life-skills training programs conducted within the school curriculum are effective in preventing the onset and escalation of substance use among adolescents. However, their dissemination is impeded due to their large resource requirements. Life-skills training provided via mobile phones may provide a more economic and scalable approach. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to test the appropriateness (ie, acceptance, use, and evaluation) and short-term efficacy of a mobile phone-based life-skills training program to prevent substance use among adolescents within a controlled trial. METHODS: The study design was a two-arm, parallel-group, cluster-randomized controlled trial with assessments at baseline and follow-up assessments after 6 and 18 months. This report includes outcomes measured up to the 6-month follow-up. The efficacy of the intervention was tested in comparison to an assessment-only control group. The automated intervention program SmartCoach included online feedback and individually tailored text messages provided over 22 weeks. The contents were based on social cognitive theory and addressed self-management skills, social skills, and substance use resistance skills. Linear mixed models and generalized linear mixed models, as well as logistic or linear regressions, were used to investigate changes between baseline and 6-month follow-up in the following outcomes: 30-day prevalence rates of problem drinking, tobacco use, and cannabis use as well as quantity of alcohol use, quantity of cigarettes smoked, cannabis use days, perceived stress, well-being, and social skills. RESULTS: A total of 1759 students from 89 Swiss secondary and upper secondary school classes were invited to participate in the study. Of these, 1473 (83.7%) students participated in the study; the mean age was 15.4 years (SD 1.0) and 55.2% (813/1473) were female. Follow-up assessments at 6 months were completed by 1233 (83.7%) study participants. On average, program participants responded to half (23.6 out of 50) of the prompted activities. Program evaluations underlined its appropriateness for the target group of secondary school students, with the majority rating the program as helpful and individually tailored. The results concerning the initial effectiveness of this program based on 6-month follow-up data are promising, with three of nine outcomes of the intention-to-treat analyses showing beneficial developments of statistical significance (ie, quantity of alcohol use, quantity of tobacco use, and perceived stress; P<.05) and another three outcomes (ie, problem drinking prevalence, cannabis use days, and social skills) showing beneficial developments of borderline significance (P<.10). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed good acceptance of this intervention program that could be easily and economically implemented in school classes. Initial results on program efficacy indicate that it might be effective in both preventing or reducing substance use and fostering life skills; however, data from the final 18-month follow-up assessments will be more conclusive. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN41347061; https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN41347061.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealthSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207