Skip to main content

Table 4 Proportion of lower risk response for proximal outcomes by year, study group, and substance

From: Testing implementation support for evidence-based programs in community settings: a replication cluster-randomized trial of Getting To Outcomes®

 

Year 1

Year 2

Control

Intervention

Control

Intervention

Substances

Proximal outcomes (items)

BL

3 months

6 months

BL

3 months

6 months

BL

3 months

6 months

BL

3 months

6 months

Cigarettes

Positive consequences1 (3)

.59

.45

.43

.53

.49

.49

.55

.50

.55

.62

.47

.51

Negative consequences2 (3)

.30

.36

.41

.30

.39

.27

.27

.38

.42

.28

.38

.42

Resistance self-efficacy3 (3)

.80

.81

.81

.79

.81

.75

.82

.83

.80

.84

.84

.77

Perception of peer use4 (1)

.71

.71

.74

.72

.70

.70

.80

.72

.72

.79

.66

.77

With using friends5 (1)

.76

.76

.80

.75

.78

.74

.79

.80

.80

.81

.75

.80

Best friend use6 (1)

.94

.96

.95

.91

.96

.95

.95

.95

.94

.91

.91

.94

Intentions to use7 (1)

.92

.93

.92

.91

.91

.91

.91

.93

.95

.80

.87

.93

Alcohol

Positive consequences (2)

.64

.53

.52

.56

.54

.46

.62

.56

.56

.64

.57

.58

Negative consequences (2)

.59

.72

.67

.59

.61

.57

.54

.60

.61

.56

.65

.70

Resistance self-efficacy (3)

.80

.74

78

.77

.78

.68

.80

.77

.78

.75

.79

.74

Perception of peer use (1)

.72

.63

.66

.69

.64

.63

.78

.70

.65

.74

.65

.64

With using friends (1)

.73

.76

.80

.70

.71

.64

.78

.73

.78

.79

.78

.76

Best friend use (1)

.90

.89

.91

.88

.85

.87

.96

.90

.89

.85

.89

.89

Intentions to use (1)

.82

.83

.85

.82

.83

.77

.86

.85

.88

.89

.90

.84

Marijuana

Positive consequences (3)

.56

.49

.46

.52

.51

.47

.59

.59

.51

.62

.56

.48

Negative consequences (3)

.79

.82

.78

.76

.79

.71

.75

.72

.74

.73

.74

.78

Resistance self-efficacy (3)

.86

.86

.88

.84

.87

.74

.89

.85

.86

.86

.84

.80

Perception of peer use (1)

.68

.65

.67

.67

.61

.62

.74

.65

.66

.75

.58

.68

With using friends (1)

.77

.76

.77

.68

.72

.65

.79

.76

.72

.75

.71

.71

Best friend use (1)

.87

.93

.89

.88

.87

.84

.97

.91

.85

.89

.86

.86

Intentions to use (1)

.89

.90

.91

.90

.88

.82

.93

.90

.89

.90

.87

.86

  1. BL = baseline; 3 months = 3-month follow-up after program; 6 months = 6-month follow-up after program
  2. 1Positive consequences. Lower risk = “strongly disagree” across all consequences vs. any other combination
  3. 2Negative consequences. Lower risk = “strongly agree” across all consequences vs. any other combination
  4. 3Resistance self-efficacy. Lower risk = “would definitely not use” across all situations
  5. 4Perception of peer use. % of peers in their grade who they believe use; lower risk = “0” or “10%” vs. 20% or more
  6. 5With using friends. Lower risk = “never”
  7. 6Best friend use. Lower risk = “no”
  8. 7Intentions to use. Lower risk = “definitely no”
Back to article page

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908