COMPARE TWO INTERVENTIONS AND SUGGEST A THIRD 1
CompareTwo Interventions and Suggest a Third
Drug abuse in the United States is a major health issue that has tobe addressed with a clear and sound strategy. Recent studies haveprovided reliable data that has identified drug abuse among the youthleading in particular among the industrialized countries (Johnston,O’Malley, & Bachman, 1995). There is a strong correlationbetween substance addiction and various adverse effects on health.For example, once stands the danger of contracting HIV while engagingin unhealthy behaviors as a result of drug addiction (Johnston etal., 1995).
The most alarming revelation, however, is the realization that thedeclining use of drugs that was evident in the past decades has beenreversed. National health survey data indicates that students in 8thand 10th grades in the 1990s and mid-1990s areincreasingly using drugs at an alarming rate (Bachman etal., 1991). Therefore, it has become important and indeed a nationalpriority to engaged and formulate strategies that will intervene,regulate and reduce the worrying engagement of youths in drug abuse.These methods apart from being effective in reducing drug abuse casesshould also be cost effective and efficient.
The paper herein will focus on two approaches that have been used tocurb drug abuse among the youth. Their mode of intervention, targetgroup, and effectiveness will be analyzed. It is important to notethat the methods of intervention are centered on psychological andsocial factors that are believed to be initiators of drug use andabuse. The methods are considered to change the beliefs regardingprevalence, the acceptability of drug use, raise moral questions onmatters drugs, develop awareness, and sensitize on skills vital inresisting drug use (Bachman et al., 1991). This paper will comparetwo interventions Project towards no drug abuse (Project TND) and“Healthy Choices” based on Motivational interview (MI)
Comparison
The (Project TND) method a targets sample size of 1074 students.Their ages ranged between 12 and 17 years (Sussman, Dent, Stacy, &Craig, 1998). Students attending continuing schools were consideredfor the target population. The assumption taken is that this group ofstudents is at a greater risk of engaging in drug abuse as comparedto those going to secondary schools (Sun, Skara, Sun, Dent, &Sussman, 2006). On the other hand, Health choices targeted a groupof 143 students with HIV aged of ages between 16 and 26 years old.
Project TND is as founded on the theories of cognitive perception andbehavioral skills. The method seeks to address issues relating todrug abuse/ drug use myths that have been held or believed to betrue. In addition to that, Project TND addresses the problem ofmisinformed choices that youths are prone to make that have theconsequence of leading them massive drug use (Sussman et al.,1998). "Healthy Choices" pursue an entirely differentpath. It uses Motivational Interviewing to understand and providesolutions to the problems of drug use, result perception and drugrisks expectancies (Sun et al., 2006). Overall, the "HealthyChoices" reduce the use of alcohol by 15-months follow-ups. Ofimportance is the MI-based solution, which was effective after sometime in reducing the chances of individuals being heavy drinkers.
On the impactsof the methods of intervention, the project towards no showed betterresults drug in addressing the issue of hard drug use among thetarget population. The significance of the program conditions wasless likely to apply hard drugs than controlling the actual situation(Sun et al., 2006). Heavy users of alcohol are identified amongstthe target population. After some time, the effects of hard drugsabout the application of the intervention method are noticeable.However, even though community building programs were added to theplan to break the communication break down and facilitatesocialization, the methods’ effectiveness did not improve (Tobler,1986). In the long –run, it was established that the method had nosignificant effect on the use of marijuana and cigarette.
Healthy choices make remarkable contributions in its interventionagainst those using marijuana and alcohol. It was noted thatovertime, MI-based drug use intervention achieved a reduction inalcohol consumption by 15 months of follow-ups. The MI-centeredintervention also played a critical role in preventing the adolescentpopulation from becoming heavy drinkers or consumers of alcohol(Murphy, Chen, Naar-King, & Parsons for the Adolescent Trials N,2012). The method was also found out to be effective in curbingheavy drinking only to participants who were either mild or moderateusers of alcohol. As opposed to the Project TND, the health choicesintervention had a noticeable contribution in reducing marijuanaeffect. Nevertheless, the reduction was only useful to moderatemarijuana users. Studies conducted have been keen in establishingthat this method is only efficient and reliable with at risk or milddependents as opposed to severe dependents (Murphy et al., 2012).
These two interventions are both randomized control trials. Forinstance, in Project TND, approximately 29 schools from the SouthernCalifornia region having five counties carried out recruitment forall the participants in a procedural approximation of randomselection (Sussman et al., 1998). The first session within theseschools will include the motivation of students to listen tocontinuing programming while emphasizing on practical listeningskills (Hansen, 1992). The second one instructs those students inalternative skills of coping and issues of chemical dependency(Botvin, Schinke, & Orlandi, 1989). The third session setencourages these students from making choices regarding no-drug-use.Additionally, to the classroom curriculum, the concept of the schoolcommunity was applied in developing the kind of community programcomponent, whereby the students get involved in sponsored activitiesby the faculty from without the classroom. Here, the hypothesis wasthat providing materials for drug abuse outside the classroom, whichincludes the use of other activities, which make a limited movementfrom without the nearby community. The program was handled anddelivered by the well-trained teachers, which saw the enhancement ofeffective classroom-based programming (Botvin et al., 1989).
The "Healthy Choices" intervention is comprised of fourindividual sessions, 60 minutes each, between a trained therapist andthe participant. These sessions paid attention to two of the threeprobable issues based on the screening entry. Among the 143 youthswho qualifies for the substance use intervention, 69 of them assignedrandomly to the intervention groups and 75 to the control groups. Ofthe 143 youth, 78.2% of them were African American, 4.3% White, 9.2%Hispanic, and 8.5% mixed/other race (Botvin et al., 1995). Thisintervention was coined from the Motivational Enhancement Therapy,whereby the MI principles combine to form structured personalizedfeedback to facilitate changes in behavior. The intervention entailsthree sessions.
The first two sessions focus on eliciting the individuals` view ofthe two issues under study, a discussion and elimination ofindividual`s readiness make changes, exercises of decisional balance,and the completion of the plan for behavior change. The third sessioninvolved demonstration of behavioral reinforcement and the renewalcommitment to the maintenance of future changes in behavior. Thefinal session determined the termination, self-efficacy belonging toparticipants, and long-term maintenance plans of behavioral change(Botvin et al., 1995). All these sessions were conducted within a12-week period. The first and second sessions occurred in the firsttwo weeks, and the third meeting occurred four weeks later. Thespacing in between the sessions was designed to allowed persons toparticipate in opportunities put in behavioral change practices.
The additional intervention method is Keeping’ it real. Has itsemphasis on preventive and resistive approach in fighting drug abuse.The name is derived from the words Refuse offers to use thesubstance. Keeping it real is taught by trained teachers in ten–lesson curriculum of 45 minutes sessions (Bangert-Drowns, 1995).There are also booster sessions for the lessons. ). Theperformance-based and narrative curriculum borrows from theCommunication Competence Theory coupled with a culturally-basedresiliency model. The most important part is that the curriculum isdesigned to teach and train students to determine the demeritsassociated with drug use. Additionally, students are taught to reducesubstance use, make resistance decisions (Forman & Sharp,2012). The method has been found to be useful in solving marijuanaissues. This achievement is pegged on the ability of the method toembrace societal concerns. Notably, this intervention shows that drugabuse efforts on prevention are enhanced and improved when all itsprograms are grounded, culturally for example, reflecting on theyouth receiving this intervention (Forman & Sharp, 2012).
Conclusion
Drug abuse intervention remains the primary focus in the fightagainst drug addiction among the young people. The above discussedmethods provide the stepping stone towards a more successful fightagainst the norm. However, as discussed above, the variousintervention methods have their areas of success and failure. In thisregard, it is vital that those involved in the formulation of counterdrug use strategies select the most suitable method for theirpreferred intervention. It’s by so doing that more positive resultscan be achieved.
References
Bachman, J. G., Wallace, J. M. J., O’Malley, P. M., Johnston, L.D., Kurth, C. L., & Neighbors, H. W. (1991). Racial/Ethnicdifferences in smoking, drinking, and illicit drug use among Americanhigh school seniors, 1976-89. American Journal of Public Health,81(3), 372–377. http://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.81.3.372
Bangert-Drowns, R. L. (1995). The Effects of School-Based SubstanceAbuse Education — a Meta-Analysis. Journal of Drug Education,18(3), 243–264. http://doi.org/10.2190/8U40-WP3D-FFWC-YF1U
Botvin, G. J., Schinke, S. P., & Orlandi, M. A. (1989).Psychosocial approaches to substance abuse prevention: theoreticalfoundations and empirical findings. Crisis.
Forman, S., & Sharp, L. (2012). Substance-abuse prevention:School-based cognitive-behavioral approaches. In Cognitive-behavioralinterventions in educational settings: A handbook for practice(pp. 557–581). Retrieved fromhttp://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/docview/1074674718?accountid=4485
Hansen, W. B. (1992). School-based substance abuse prevention: Areview of the state of the art in curriculum, 1980–1990. HealthEducation Research, 7(3), 403–430.http://doi.org/10.1093/her/7.3.403
Johnston, L., O’Malley, P., & Bachman, J. (1995). Nationalsurvey results on drug use from the monitoring the future study,1975-1994: Volume 1 Secondary School Students. National Institutesof Health, National. Retrieved fromhttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:National+survey+results+on+drug+use+from+the+monitoring+the+future+study,+1975-1994:+Volume+1+Secondary+School+Students.#2
Murphy, D. a., Chen, X., Naar-King, S., & Parsons for theAdolescent Trials N, J. T. (2012). Alcohol and Marijuana Use Outcomesin the Healthy Choices Motivational Interviewing Intervention forHIV-Positive Youth. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 26(2),95–100. http://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2011.0157
Sun, W., Skara, S., Sun, P., Dent, C. W., & Sussman, S. (2006).Project Towards No Drug Abuse: Long-term substance use outcomesevaluation. Preventive Medicine, 42(3), 188–192.http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2005.11.011
Sussman, S., Dent, C. W., Stacy, A. W., & Craig, S. (1998).One-year outcomes of Project Towards No Drug Abuse. PreventiveMedicine, 27(4), 632–42.http://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1998.0338
Tobler, N. S. (1986). Meta-analysis of 143 adolescent drug preventionprograms: Quantitative outcome results of program participantscompared to a control or comparison group. Journal of Drug Issues,16(4), 537–567.