• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Center for Substance Abuse Prevention (US). Reducing Tobacco Use Among Youth: Community Based Approaches (Reference Guide). Rockville (MD): Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US); 1997. (Prevention Enhancement Protocols System (PEPS), No. 1.)

  • This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.

Cover of Reducing Tobacco Use Among Youth: Community Based Approaches (Reference Guide)

Reducing Tobacco Use Among Youth: Community Based Approaches (Reference Guide).

Show details

Appendix BResearch and Practice Search Protocols

Literature Information Search

Protocol for Identifying Research Evidence

To facilitate preparation of this guideline, the Federal Resource Panel identified literature focusing on youth access to tobacco and enforcement issues in a DIALOG search. Medline 1966+, Health Periodicals, Cancerlit, and Smoking and Health databases were accessed with the following key words: youth and tobacco, and youth access to tobacco.

The panel then prepared the Youth & Tobacco Products Prevention Sourcebook. This document focuses on the prevention of youth access to tobacco. The Tobacco Expert Panel and Planning Group expanded the scope of the guideline and identified additional literature in the following categories:

  • Youth and tobacco
  • Advertising/marketing
  • Schoolbased approaches
  • Role modeling by adults
  • Peers
  • Organizational efforts
  • Etiology/predisposing factors
  • Methodology
  • Special populations
  • Parent/family
  • Tobacco access policy

The panel conducted a second DIALOG search of the Medline 1966+, Health Periodicals, Cancerlit, and Smoking and Health databases. The search was restricted to articles published during 1993 and 1994. The following key words were used:

  • (Youth or kids) and (tobacco or smoking)
  • Smokeless tobacco and (youth or kids)
  • (Tobacco or smoking) and research and youth
  • (Tobacco or smoking) and youth programs
  • (Tobacco or smoking) and (State or regional)

A search was also conducted on Medline CDROM at the U.S. Public Health Service's Parklawn Health Library in Rockville, Maryland. The following key words were used:

  • (Youth or kids) and tobacco
  • (Youth or kids) and smoking
  • (Youth or kids) and smokeless tobacco
  • Smokeless tobacco
  • Tobacco and State programs
  • Smoking and State programs
  • (Tobacco or smoking) and regional programs
  • (Tobacco or smoking) and youth research
  • (Tobacco or smoking) and youth programs

The Tobacco Expert Panel reviewed the resulting citations and provided additional key citations including some from the 1994 Surgeon General's report. They then checked the references in the retrieved literature for other citations and scanned the journals in which most of them were published for relevant articles for the period between June 1993 and June 1994.

PEPS staff sent a list of articles reviewed in the guideline to the Tobacco Expert Panel one week before the June meeting to allow time for review, and solicited additions to the list. At the next meeting the Expert Panel discussed procedures for accessing fugitive literature, and the materials were retrieved. PEPS staff conducted a third DIALOG search of the Medline 1966+, Health Periodicals, Cancerlit, and Smoking and Health databases, using the following key words:

  • Youth and tobacco
  • Tobacco advertising
  • Tobacco sponsorship
  • Mass media and tobacco use prevention
  • Tobacco prevention and parent programs

PEPS staff reviewed the retrieved articles. Those relevant to the topic and discussing the application of an intervention or policy to reduce tobacco use among youth were selected for annotation. They then annotated articles that met the criteria and then organized them by approach. The Tobacco Expert Panel Subgroup reviewed the articles and determined that 29 articles would be included in the guideline.

Results

A total of 310 articles were retrieved, of which 36 articles representing 28 studies were included in the guideline.

Practice Information Search

Protocol for Soliciting Practice Evidence

Single State and Territorial Agency Directors, State National Prevention Network Designees, and Association of State and Territorial Health Officers (ASTHO) tobacco prevention contacts were sent a letter requesting information on communitybased tobacco use prevention programs. The letter included a short nomination form (Figure B1) requesting contact information concerning practice projects and a longer nomination form requesting specific project information.

Other groups that received requests for nomination were

  • The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  • Stop Teenage Addiction to Tobacco
  • The American Lung Association
  • The American Heart Association
  • The American Cancer Society

Followup phone calls were made to the State contacts requesting the return of the nomination forms. At least one project was nominated from each State. Followup faxes requesting project information were sent to all contact persons listed for the nominees. All nominated projects were reviewed. Those meeting the following criteria were selected for annotation:

  • Clearly stated objectives
  • Definition and description of the intervention
  • Process evaluation documentation
  • Outcome evaluation information
  • Adequate documentation to annotate the project

Projects that met the criteria were annotated and organized by approach. The annotations were reviewed by a Tobacco Expert Panel Subgroup for inclusion in the guideline.

Results

The subgroup reviewed 81 programs and selected 13 practice cases for the guideline.

Criteria for PEPS Program Review/Triage
(Please check all questions that apply.)
YESNODO NOT KNOW
Planning/Rationale

Was a community/group needs assessment conducted?

Were specific research findings/concepts used as a basis for program planning?

Program Design

Are objectives clearly documented?

Are selected strategies/activities explicitly related to stated objectives?

Documentation

Is there a system in place for documenting implementation and operations?

Is there a system in place for documenting outcomes?

Are progress reports, program assessments, and evaluation results available?

Are training materials and/or operations manuals available?

Evaluation/Outcomes

If program has ended:
Did the program achieve desired outcomes or related positive outcomes?

If program has not ended:
Are there specific plans to assess outcomes?

Replication

Does the program show promise for replication?

Has this program been replicated?
PubReader format: click here to try

Views

  • PubReader
  • Print View
  • Cite this Page