Search

Success and engagement at school and in postsecondary education are critical to healthy youth development. For youth in recovery from substance use disorders (SUDs), school attendance, engagement, and achievement build human capital by motivating personal growth, creating new opportunities and social networks, and increasing life satisfaction and meaning (Keane, 2011; Terrion, 2012; 2014). Upon discharge from formal substance use treatment settings, schools become one of the most important social environments in the lives of youth with SUDs. Healthy school peer environments can enable youth to replace substance use behaviors and norms with healthy activities and prosocial, sober peers. Conversely, many school environments may be risky for youth in recovery from SUDs due to perceived substance use among peers, availability of drugs or alcohol, and substance-approving norms on campus (Centers for Disease Control [CDC], 2011; Spear & Skala, 1995; Wambeam, Canen, Linkenbach, & Otto, 2014). This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of recovery schools on student behavioral and academic outcomes, compared to the effects of non-recovery schools. The review summarizes evidence from one quasi-experimental study (with a total of 194 participants) that had potential serious risk of bias due to confounding.

Purpose: Psychometrically sound parenting instruments are a critical aid in guiding clinical assessments of adolescent behavioral outcomes, particularly among clinical samples of adolescents. However, there is a paucity of research on these parenting instruments among adolescents with histories of substance use disorders (SUDs) who represent a high-risk clinical population for whom parents are critical in their recovery process. Method: This study investigated the psychometric properties of an abridged 17-item Alabama Parenting Questionnaire (APQ) in a sample of 294 adolescents (45% female, mean age = 16 years) and their parents (84% female) recruited from substance use treatment facilities as part of a longitudinal parent study. Confirmatory factor analyses established the factor fit of the abridged APQ, and path analyses assessed the predictive validity of the APQ constructs in relation to adolescent externalizing behavior symptoms 6 months later. Results: Results suggested the hypothesized three-factor model consisting of Positive Parenting, Poor Monitoring, and Inconsistent Discipline parenting constructs represented a satisfactory fit to the data, with minor modifications in scale content for both adolescent and parent versions. All three latent factors were moderately correlated in the adolescent-reported version, but there was no evidence that Inconsistent Discipline and Poor Monitoring were significantly correlated in the parent-reported version. Additionally, results supported the predictive validity of these constructs related to adolescent externalizing behavioral outcomes. Discussion: Overall, results of the present study support the utility of a multi-informant abridged parenting assessment. However, some items of the Parental Monitoring and Inconsistent Discipline constructs may not be strong indicators of parenting practices among youth in recovery from SUDs. We conclude with suggestions for future research efforts as well as clinical implications of parenting measures among adolescents with SUD histories. [This paper will be published in "Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal."]

Background: A number of school systems worldwide have proposed and implemented later school start times as a means of avoiding the potentially negative impacts that early morning schedules can have on adolescent students. Even mild sleep deprivation has been associated with significant health and educational concerns: increased risk for accidents and injuries, impaired learning, aggression, memory loss, poor self-esteem, and changes in metabolism. Although researchers have begun to explore the effects of delayed school start time, no one has conducted a rigorous review of evidence to determine whether later school start times support adolescent health, education, and well-being. Objectives: We aimed to assess the effects of a later school start time for supporting health, education, and well-being in high school students. Secondary objectives were to explore possible differential effects of later school start times in student subgroups and in different types of schools; to identify implementation practices, contextual factors, and delivery modes associated with positive and negative effects of later start times; and to assess the effects of later school start times on the broader community (high school faculty and staff, neighborhood, and families). Search methods: We conducted the main search for this review on 28 October 2014 and updated it on 8 February 2016. We searched CENTRAL as well as 17 key electronic databases (including MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, PsycINFO, and Sociological Abstracts), current editions of relevant journals and organizational websites, trial registries, and Google Scholar. Selection criteria: We included any randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies, and interrupted time series studies with sufficient data points that pertained to students aged 13 to 19 years and that compared different school start times. Studies that reported either primary outcomes of interest (academic outcomes, amount or quality of sleep, mental health indicators, attendance, or alertness) or secondary outcomes (health behaviors, health and safety indicators, social outcomes, family outcomes, school outcomes, or community outcomes) were eligible. Data collection and analysis: At least two review authors independently determined inclusion and exclusion decisions through screening titles, abstracts, and full-text reports. Two review authors independently extracted data for all eligible studies. We presented findings through a narrative synthesis across all studies. When two or more study samples provided sufficient information to permit effect size calculations, we conducted random-effects meta-analyses to synthesize effects across studies. Results: Our search located 17 eligible records reporting on 11 unique studies with 297,994 participants; the studies examined academic outcomes, amount and quality of sleep, mental health indicators, attendance, and student alertness. Overall, the quality of the body of evidence was very low, as we rated most studies as being at high or unclear risk of bias with respect to allocation, attrition, absence of randomization, and the collection of baseline data. Therefore, we cannot be confident about the effects of later school start times. Preliminary evidence from the included studies indicated a potential association between later school start times and academic and psychosocial outcomes, but quality and comparability of these data were low and often precluded quantitative synthesis. Four studies examined the association between later school start times and academic outcomes, reporting mixed results. Six studies examined effects on total amount of sleep and reported significant, positive relationships between later school start times and amount of sleep. One study provided information concerning mental health outcomes, reporting an association between decreased depressive symptoms and later school start times. There were mixed results for the association between later school start times and absenteeism. Three studies reported mixed results concerning the association between later school start times and student alertness. There was limited indication of potential adverse effects on logistics, as the qualitative portions of one study reported less interaction between parents and children, and another reported staffing and scheduling difficulties. Because of the insufficient evidence, we cannot draw firm conclusions concerning adverse effects at this time. It is important to note the limitations of this evidence, especially as randomized controlled trials and high-quality primary studies are difficult to conduct; school systems are often unwilling or unable to allow researchers the necessary control over scheduling and data collection. Moreover, this evidence does not speak to the process of implementing later school starts, as the included studies focused on reporting the effects rather than exploring the process. Authors' conclusions: This systematic review on later school start times suggests several potential benefits for this intervention and points to the need for higher quality primary studies. However, as a result of the limited evidence base, we could not determine the effects of later school start times with any confidence. [Additional funding was provided by: (1) Department of Public Health Sciences, Canada; and (2) Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Population Health Intervention Research Network, Canada.]

Adolescent opioid misuse is a public health crisis, particularly among clinical populations of youth 15 with substance misuse histories. Given the negative and often lethal consequences associated with 16 opioid misuse among adolescents, it is essential to identify the risk and protective factors underlying 17 early opioid misuse to inform targeted prevention efforts. Understanding the role of parental risk and 18 protective factors is particularly paramount during the developmental stage of adolescence. Using a 19 social-ecological framework, this study explored the associations between individual, peer, family, 20 community, and school-level risk and protective factors and opioid use among adolescents with 21 histories of substance use disorders (SUDs). Further, we explored the potential moderating role of 22 poor parental monitoring in the associations between the aforementioned risk and protective factors 23 and adolescent opioid use. Participants included 294 adolescents (M[subscript age] = 16 years; 45% female) who 24 were recently discharged from substance use treatment, and their parents (n = 323). Results indicated 25 that lifetime opioid use was significantly more likely among adolescents endorsing antisocial traits 26 and those whose parents reported histories of substance abuse. Additionally, adolescents reporting 27 more perceived availability of substances were significantly more likely to report lifetime opioid use 28 compared to those reporting lower perceived availability of substances. Results did not indicate any 29 significant moderation effects of parental monitoring on any associations between risk factors and 30 lifetime opioid use. Findings generally did not support social-ecological indicators of opioid use in 31 this high-risk population of adolescents, signaling that the social-ecological variables tested may not 32 be salient risk factors among adolescents with SUD histories. We discuss these findings in terms of 33 continuing care options for adolescents with SUD histories that target adolescents' antisocial traits, 34 perceived availability of substances, and parent histories of substance abuse, including practical 35 implications for working with families of adolescents with SUD histories. [This paper was published in "Frontiers in Psychology" 2021.]

Practitioners and policymakers rely on meta-analyses to inform decision-making around the allocation of resources to individuals and organizations. It is therefore paramount to consider the validity of these results. A well-documented threat to the validity of research synthesis results is the presence of publication bias, a phenomenon where studies with large and/or statistically significant effects, relative to studies with small or null effects, are more likely to be published (Rothstein, Borenstein, & Sutton, 2005). We investigated this phenomenon empirically by reviewing meta-analyses published in top tier journals between 1986-2013 that quantified the difference between effect sizes from published and unpublished research. We reviewed 383 meta-analyses of which 81 had sufficient information to calculate an effect size. Results indicated that published studies yielded larger effect sizes than those from unpublished studies (d-bar = 0.18, 95% CI [0.10, 0.25]). Moderator analyses revealed that the difference was larger in meta-analyses that included a wide range of unpublished literature. We conclude that intervention researchers require continued support to publish null findings and that meta-analyses should include unpublished studies to mitigate the potential bias from publication status. [This article was published in: "Review of Educational Research" v86 n1 p207-236 Mar 2016 (EJ1090515).]

Homophobic victimization is a pervasive problem in U.S. schools that leads to negative outcomes for students. Those who experience homophobic victimization are at greater risk for avoiding particular spaces in school because they feel unsafe or afraid. Visible school security measures (e.g., security guards, metal detectors, and cameras) offer spatial guardianship that may reduce students' place-specific avoidance behaviors. To test this moderating effect of school security, we analyzed data from six panels of the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (N = 41,229). Logistic regression models were used to examine the moderating effect of three types of school security measures on the association between homophobic victimization and avoidance of six specific locations in school and overall fear of victimization at school. Results suggest that visible security measures did not meaningfully moderate the association between homophobic victimization and school avoidance. [At time of submission to ERIC this article was in press with "Journal of School Violence."]

Many U.S. schools use visible security measures (security cameras, metal detectors, security personnel) in an effort to keep schools safe and promote adolescents' academic success. This study examined how different patterns of visible security utilization were associated with U.S. middle and high school students' academic performance, attendance, and postsecondary educational aspirations. The data for this study came from two large national surveys--the School Crime Supplement to the National Crime Victimization Survey (N = 38,707 students; 51% male, 77% White, M[subscript Age] = 14.72) and the School Survey on Crime & Safety (N = 10,340 schools; average student composition of 50% male, 57% White). The results provided no evidence that visible security measures had consistent beneficial effects on adolescents' academic outcomes; some security utilization patterns had modest detrimental effects on adolescents' academic outcomes, particularly the heavy surveillance patterns observed in a small subset of high schools serving predominantly low socioeconomic students. The findings of this study provide no evidence that visible security measures have any sizeable effects on academic performance, attendance, or postsecondary aspirations among U.S. middle and high school students. The following are appended: (1) Variables Used in Propensity Score Models (table); and (2) Effects of Visible Security Measures on Academic Outcomes, SCS Student Surveys (N = 38,707) (table). [At time of submission to ERIC this article was in press with "Journal of Youth and Adolescence."]

The objectives of this systematic review were to summarize the available evidence on the effects of prevention and intervention programs aimed at primary and secondary students for increasing school completion or reducing school dropout. The primary focus of the meta-analysis was to examine the comparative effectiveness of different programs and program approaches in an effort to identify those with the largest and most reliable effects on school completion and dropout outcomes. The authors also sought to summarize the effects of programs designed for pregnant and parenting teens. A comprehensive and diverse international search strategy was used to locate qualifying studies reported between 1985 and 2010. A wide range of electronic bibliographic databases were searched, along with research registers, other grey literature databases, reference lists of all previous meta-analyses and reviews on the topic, as well as citations in research reports. The authors also maintained correspondence with researchers in the field of school dropout prevention. The literature search yielded a total of 23,677 reports, 2,794 which were deemed potentially relevant and retrieved for eligibility determination. Of those, 548 reports describing 167 different studies were included in the final review. Random-effects inverse variance weighted meta-analytic methods were used to synthesize odds ratios for the school dropout outcomes. Meta-regression models were used to examine the effects of program characteristics, methodological characteristics, and participant characteristics on the dropout odds ratios. Funnel plots, regression tests for small sample bias, and trim and fill analyses were used to assess the possibility of publication bias. Overall, results indicated that most school- and community-based programs were effective in decreasing school dropout. Given the minimal variation in effects across program types, the main conclusion from this review is that dropout prevention and intervention programs, regardless of type, will likely be effective if they are implemented well and are appropriate for the local environment. The authors recommend that policy makers and practitioners choosing dropout prevention programs consider the cost-effectiveness of programs, and choose those that fit best with local needs as well as implementer abilities and resources. Appended are: (1) Additional Tables; and (2) Additional Figures. (Contains 11 tables, 5 figures and 3 footnotes.) [Funding for this paper was provided by the Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University.]