Formally evaluated prevention programs against substance use seldom report on intervention effects according to gender. The EU-DAP multicentric trial was conducted in 2004-2005 to study the efficacy of an innovative European program against tobacco, alcohol and illicit substances in junior high school, based on a comprehensive social influence approach. The short term follow-up showed significant program effects in curbing smoking and other substance use, with stronger effects for regular and daily smoking than for less advanced behavior. However, there was a significant program*gender interaction, with boys showing high responsiveness (multilevel adjusted OR regular smoking=0.68, CI=0.50-0.93; OR daily smoking 0.49, CI=0.34-0.71), while the effect was not detected among girls (OR regular=1.07, CI=0.74-1.55; OR daily=0.99; CI =0.64-1.52). This pattern was constant across all substance use and across geographical locations. Possible interpretations include differential stages of smoking acquisition or nicotine dependence at the time of prevention (general host sensitivity) or specific gender sensitivity of the underlying pedagogic models in ‘state of art’ prevention. The findings highlight the importance of studying gender differences in prevention research.
Are “State of Art” smoking prevention programs for adolescents gender sensitive? Suggestions from the EU-Dap trial
VIGNA-TAGLIANTI, Federica;
2007-01-01
Abstract
Formally evaluated prevention programs against substance use seldom report on intervention effects according to gender. The EU-DAP multicentric trial was conducted in 2004-2005 to study the efficacy of an innovative European program against tobacco, alcohol and illicit substances in junior high school, based on a comprehensive social influence approach. The short term follow-up showed significant program effects in curbing smoking and other substance use, with stronger effects for regular and daily smoking than for less advanced behavior. However, there was a significant program*gender interaction, with boys showing high responsiveness (multilevel adjusted OR regular smoking=0.68, CI=0.50-0.93; OR daily smoking 0.49, CI=0.34-0.71), while the effect was not detected among girls (OR regular=1.07, CI=0.74-1.55; OR daily=0.99; CI =0.64-1.52). This pattern was constant across all substance use and across geographical locations. Possible interpretations include differential stages of smoking acquisition or nicotine dependence at the time of prevention (general host sensitivity) or specific gender sensitivity of the underlying pedagogic models in ‘state of art’ prevention. The findings highlight the importance of studying gender differences in prevention research.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
