Skip to main content

Table 2 Excluded studies that target to a specific group. Targeted studies not included in the analysis and to which group the intervention was targeted towards

From: Examining subgroup effects by socioeconomic status of public health interventions targeting multiple risk behaviour in adolescence

Primary Authors

Trial

Targeted to which group

Bernstein 2010 [66]

Reaching Adolescents for Prevention

Young people with high levels of risk behaviour

Berry 2009 [67]

Coaching for Communities

Young people with at least one of five key risk factors

Bond et al. 2001 [68]

Gatehouse

Government, independent and Catholic schools

Brody 2012a [69]

Adults in the making

Targeted to African American families in rural Georgia

Brody 2012b [69]

SAAF-T

Targeted to African American families in rural Georgia

Bush 1989 [70]

Know Your Body 2

Black students in Columbia district

Catalano 1999 [71]

Focus on Families

Parents in methadone treatment and their children

Clark et al. 2010 [72]

SUCCESS

Youth with behavioural problems

Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group 2014 [73]

Fast Track

Children with conduct problems

Cunningham 2012 [74]

SafERteens

Hazardous and harmful adolescent drinkers attending emergency department unit

Elder et al. 2002 [75]

Migrant education

Migrants - predominantly Mexican

Fang 2010 [76]

Mother-Daughter - Asian-American

Asian-American adolescent girls - second generation from socioeconomically advantaged backgrounds

Flay 2004 [77]

Aban Aya

Predominantly African-American schools, high risk sample

Freudenberg 2010 [78]

REAL MEN

Male participants recruited in prisons

Friedman 2002 [79]

Botvin LST and Anti-Violence

Inner-city, low SES, court adjudicated males convicted of at least one offence

Gersick 1988 [80]

Gersick

Public schools from predominantly working and lower -middle class towns

Gilchrist et al. 1987 [81]

Skills enchancement prog

American Indian youth

Gonzales [82]

Bridges to High School

Family program targeted to Mexican Americans

Griffin 2009 [83]

BRAVE

Inner city African-American majority

Hallfors et al. 2006 [84]

Reconnecting youth

Identified by school as being high risk - top 25% for truancy and bottom 50% for GPA or referral by school teacher/counsellor

Horan et al. 1982 [85]

Assertion training

Those with the lowest Assertive Behaviour Test (ABT) scores i.e. least assertive individuals

Kim 2011 [86]

Middle School Success

Girls in foster care, who are about to enter middle school

Kitzman 2010 [87]

Nurse Family Partnership 2

Females less than 29 weeks gestation, with socio-demographic risk characteristics

Komro et al. 2008 [88]

Project northland

Urban, multi-ethnic and low-income population

Lewis 2013 [89]

Positive Action (Chicago)

Undergraduates engaged in alcohol or sexual risk behaviour

Li 2002 [90]

imPACT

African-American parent-adolescent dyads

Lochman 2003 [91]

Coping Power 1

Targeted at children at risk of aggressive/disruptive behaviour

Lochman 2004 [92]

Coping Power 2

Targeted at boys at risk of aggressive or disruptive behaviour

LoSciuto 1999 [93]

Woodrock Youth Development Project

Deprived community, with large % of children from families receiving financial assistance from state

Marsden et al. 2006 [94]

Marsden

Users of ecstasy, crack cocaine or powder cocaine

McBride-Murray 2014 [95]

SAAF

Rural African American

McCambridge et al. 2011 [96]

Motivational interviewing 2011

Mainly those who had not completed Level 2 education (i.e. not achieved conventional measure of educational attainment on completion of compulsory schooling

Milburn 2012 [97]

STRIVE

Newly homeless youth and their families

Minnis 2014 [98]

Yo Puedo

Latino participants aged 16–21 years, residing in San Francisco

Monti 1999 [99]

Alcohol Screen and B.I. 1

Individuals aged 18–19 years, with drink-related emergency department attendances

Morris 2003 [100]

Self-Sufficiency Project

Targeted at low income single parent families from 2 Provinces in Canada

Newton et al. 2009 [101]

Climate schools

Independent (private) schools

Nirenberg 2013 [102]

ROAD

Targeted to youth with a high risk driving or alcohol prior drug-related police charge

Nores 2005 [103]

High/Scope Perry

High risk children

Palinkas et al. 1996 [104]

Social skills training

Pregnant and non-pregnant (at risk for pregnancy) adolescents using/at risk of using drugs

Pantin 2009 [105]

Familias Unidas

Hispanic adolescents in grade 8 with behavioural problems, and their primary caregivers

Redding 2015 [106]

Step-by-Step

Females, aged 14–17 years, not pregnant

Sanchez 2007 [107]

Reconnecting youth

Targeted to persons experimenting with drugs or other risk-related behaviours

Schwinn 2010 [108]

RealTeen

Targeted to girls living in public subsidized housing

Shetgiri 2011 [109]

Shetgiri Study

High-risk status based on:

rate of absence of 80% and above, 2 or more disciplinary actions in 8th grade, failing two or more classes in 8th grade, or high levels of family dysfunction identified by grade teacher, using proxies such as multiple family moves in grade 8, perceived lack of parental involvement or family conflict

Sussman et al. 1998 [110]

Towards no drug abuse - School-as-community

Continuation high school youth at high risk of drug use

Tierney 1995 [111]

Big Brothers Big Sisters

Youth from single parent households recruited for mentoring

Vitaro et al. 1996 [112]

SAPP

Young boys and girls with behaviour problems diagnosed in sample

Wagner 2014 [113]

Guided Self Change

High risk behaviour related to alcohol and violence