Skip to main content
Log in

Project Family Prevention Trials Based in Community–University Partnerships: Toward Scaled-Up Preventive Interventions

  • Published:
Prevention Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Findings from Project Family are presented to illustrate how a partnership-based program of research on universal family- and youth-focused interventions is addressing a public health challenge. One aspect of this public health challenge is the high prevalence of youth problem behaviors and a second aspect concerns barriers to scaling-up empirically-supported preventive interventions designed to ameliorate those problem behaviors. Illustrative findings are presented within a conceptual framework for scaling-up preventive interventions to achieve greater public health impact. Three interrelated sets of research requirements and findings are addressed within this framework: (a) rigorously demonstrating intervention effectiveness; (b) attaining sufficient levels of intervention utilization in diverse general populations, requiring study of recruitment/retention strategies, cultural sensitivity, and economic viability; and (c) achieving implementation quality, involving investigation of adherence and dosage effects, along with theory-driven, intervention quality improvement. The paper concludes with discussion of the need for careful investigation of community–university partnership models as a key mechanism for large-scale implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Altman, D. G. (1995). Sustaining interventions in community systems: On the relationship between researchers and communities. Health Psychology, 14(6), 526–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backer, T. E. (2001). Balancing program fidelity and adaptation in substance abuse prevention: A state-of-the art review. Prepared by the National Center for the Advancement of Prevention, for the Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. Manuscript in preparation.

  • Biglan, A. (1995). Changing cultural practices: A contextual framework for intervention research. Reno, NV: Context Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A. (1998, October). Research-based programs that could help to prevent youth problem behavior. Paper presented at Center for Substance Abuse Prevention Science Symposium on family-focused preventive interventions, Bethesda, MD.

  • Chambless, D. L., & Hollon, S. D. (1998). Defining empirically supported therapies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao, W., Spoth, R., Wickrama, K., & Russell, D. (2002). Parental social-emotional maladjustment effects on growth of alcohol and tobacco outcomes of two family-focused preventive interventions. Manuscript in preparation.

  • Chen, H. T., & Rossi, P. H. (1987). The theory-driven approach to validity. Evaluation and Program Planning, 10, 95–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMarsh, J., & Kumpfer, K. L. (1986). Family-oriented interventions for the prevention of chemical dependency in children and adolescents. Prevention, 18, 117–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dishion, T. J., & Andrews, D. W. (1995). Preventing escalation in problem behaviors with high-risk young adolescents: Immediate and 1-year outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 63(4), 538–548. Special section: Prediction and prevention of child and adolescent antisocial behavior.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domitrovich, C. E., & Greenberg, M. T. (2000). The study of implementation: Current findings from effective programs that prevent mental disorders in school-aged children. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11(2), 193–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eddy, J., Dishion, T. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (1998). The analysis of intervention change in children and families: Methodological and conceptual issues embedded in intervention studies. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26(1), 53–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, M. J., & Clabby, J. F. (Eds.). (1992). Building social problem solving skills: Guidelines from a school-based program. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, M. L., & Warnecke, R. B. (1988). The diffusion of medical innovations: An applied network analysis. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fetterman, D. M., Kaftarian, S. J., & Wandersman, A. (1996). Empowerment evaluation:Knowledge and tools for self-assessment and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb, N. H., Brink, S. G., & Gingiss, P. L. (1993). Correlates of coalition effectiveness: Smoke Free Class of 2000 Program. Health Education Research, 8, 375–384.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, B. F., & Dawson, D. A. (1997). Age at onset of alcohol use and its association with DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence: Results from the national longitudinal alcohol epidemiologic survey. Journal of Substance Abuse, 9, 103–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyll, M., Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (in press). The effects of participation incentives and research requirements on participation rates for a community-based preventive intervention research study. Journal of Primary Prevention.

  • Hale-Benson, J. (1982). Black children: Their roots, culture, and learning styles. Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpert, B. P., & Sharp, T. S. (1991). Utilizing Cooperative Extension services to meet rural health needs. Journal of Rural Health, 7, 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, J. D. (1998, June). Moving to Phase Five in the prevention cycle: Collaborating with communities to make prevention science prevention practice. Paper presented at the 6th Annual Meeting of the Society for Prevention Research, Park City, UT.

  • Hawkins, J. D., & Weis, J. G. (1985). The social development model: An integrated approach to delinquency prevention. Journal of Primary Prevention, 6(2), 73–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellam, S. G. (in press). Community and institutional partnerships for prevention research and programming. Research and evaluation conference, Community Board of Local Community, Organizational, and Institutional Leaders, National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

  • Klaiber, S. E. (1986). A synthesis of evaluation of the national diffusion network. Hampton, NH: RMC Research Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumpfer, K. L., & DeMarsh, J. (1985). Genetic and family environmental influences on children of drug abusers. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 3/4, 117–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumpfer, K. L., Molgaard, V., & Spoth, R. (1996). The Strengthening Families Program for the prevention of delinquency and drug use. In R. D. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency (pp. 241–267). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Theory as method: Small theories of treatments. In R. Sechrest, J. Bunker, & E. Perrin (Eds.), Health services research methodology: Strengthening causal inference from nonexperimental research. Washington, DC: U.S. Public Health Service, National Center for Health Services Research and Health Care Technology Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molgaard, V., & Kumpfer, K. (1995). The Iowa Strengthening Families Program for families with pre-and early teens: Leader guide. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Extension.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molgaard, V. M., Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (2000). Competency training: The Strengthening Families Program for Parents and Youth 10-14. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin (NCJ 182208). Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrisey, E., Wandersman, A., Seybolt, D., Nation, M., Crusto, C., & Davino, K. (1997). Toward a framework for bridging the gap between science and practice in prevention: A focus on evaluator and practitioner perspectives. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20, 367–377.

    Google Scholar 

  • Offord, D. R., Kraemer, H. C., Kazdin, A. E., Jensen, P. S., & Harrington, R. (1998). Lowering the burden of suffering from child psychiatric disorder: Trade-offs among clinical, targeted, and universal interventions. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 37, 686–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson, G. R., Reid, J. B., & Dishion, T. J. (1992). Antisocial boys. Eugene, OR: Castalia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pentz, M. A. (1995). The school-community interface in comprehensive school health education. In S. Stansfield (Ed.), 1996 Institute of Medicine Annual Report, Committee on Comprehensive School Health Programs. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perry, C. L., Williams, C. L., Veblen-Mortenson, S., Toomey, T. L., Komro, K. A., Anstine, P. S., McGovern, P. G., Finnegan, J. R., Forster, J. L., Wagenaar, A. C., & Wolfson, M. (1996). Project Northland: Outcomes of a community-wide alcohol use prevention program during early adolescence. American Journal of Public Health, 86(7), 956–965.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redmond, C., Shin, C., & Spoth, R. (2001, June). Long-term parent, peer, and family-focused preventive intervention effects on adolescent alcohol use. Presentation at the Society for Prevention Research Ninth Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.

  • Redmond, C., Spoth, R., & Shin, C. (1998, June). Adolescent propensity to use alcohol: Long-term outcomes of a universal family-focused preventive intervention. Symposium paper presented at the Society for Prevention Research Sixth Annual Meeting, Park City, UT.

  • Redmond, C., Spoth, R., Shin, C., & Hill, G. (in press). Engaging rural parents in family-focused programs to prevent youth substance abuse. Journal of Primary Prevention.

  • Redmond, C., Spoth, R., Shin, C., & Lepper, H. (1999). Modeling long-term parent outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: One year follow-up results. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(6), 975–984.

    Google Scholar 

  • Redmond, C., Spoth, R., & Trudeau, L. (2002). Family and community-level predictors of parent support seeking. Journal of Community Psychology, 30(2), 153–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbach, L. A., D'Onofrio, C. N., Backer, T. E., & Montgomery, S. B. (1996). Diffusion of school-based substance abuse prevention programs. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 919–934.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbach, L. A., Graham, J. W., & Hansen, W. B. (1993). Diffusion of a school-based substance abuse prevention program: Predictors of program implementation. Preventive Medicine, 22, 237–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roussos, S. T., & Fawcett, S. B. (2000). A review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health, 21, 369–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxe, L., Reber, E., Hallfors, D., & Kadushin, C. (1997). Think globally, act locally: Assessing the impact of community-based substance abuse prevention. Evaluation and Program Planning, 20(3), 357–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R. (1999). Family-focused preventive intervention research: A pragmatic perspective on issues and future directions. In R. Ashery, E. Robertson, & K. Kumpfer (Eds.), NIDA Research Monograph on drug abuse prevention through family interventions (pp. 459–510). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R. (2000a, June). Implementation findings from Project Family school-based and family-focused intervention studies. Invited symposium presentation at the Society for Prevention Research Eighth Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.

  • Spoth, R. (2000b, June). Project Family: What we've learned so far. Invited symposium presentation at the Society for Prevention Research Eighth Annual Meeting, Montreal, Canada.

  • Spoth, R., Chao, W., & Molgaard, V. (2002). Randomized pilot study of a universal preventive intervention with African-American families. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Spoth, R., Goldberg, C., & Redmond, C. (1999a). Engaging families in longitudinal preventive intervention research: Discrete-time survival analysis of socioeconomic and social-emotional risk factors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 157–163.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., & Greenberg, M. (2002). PROSPER Model: Framework for a network of multilevel state partnerships to increase diffusion of proven youth and family interventions. Manuscript submitted for publication.

  • Spoth, R., Greenberg, M., & Bierman, K. (2000a, April). Public education/extension prevention partnerships: Proposed diffusion research. Invited presentation to the U.S. Department of Education Safe and Drug Free Schools Program, Washington, DC.

  • Spoth, R., Guyll, M., & Day, S. X. (2002). Universal family-focused interventions in alcohol-use disorder prevention: Cost effectiveness and cost-benefit analyses of two interventions. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63(2), 219–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., Guyll, M., Trudeau, L., & (Goldberg) Lillehoj, C. J. (in press-a). Two studies of proximal outcomes and implementation quality of universal preventive interventions in a community-university collaboration context. Journal of Community Psychology.

  • Spoth, R. L., Kavanagh, K., & Dishion. T. (this issue). Family-centered preventive intervention science: Toward benefits to larger populations of children, youth, and families. Prevention Science.

  • Spoth, R., & Molgaard, V. (1999). Project Family: A partnership integrating research with the practice of promoting family and youth competencies. In T. R. Chibucos & R. Lerner (Eds.), Serving children and families through community-university partnerships: Success stories (pp. 127–137). Boston: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth R., & Redmond, C. (1993a). Identifying program preferences through conjoint analysis: Illustrative results from a parent sample. American Journal of Health Promotion, 8(2), 124–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth R., & Redmond, C. (1993b). Study of participation barriers in family-focused prevention: Research issues and preliminary results. International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 13(4), 365–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth R., & Redmond, C. (1994). Effective recruitment of parents into family-focused prevention research: A comparison of two strategies. Psychology and Health: An International Journal, 9, 353–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (1995). Parent motivation to enroll in parenting skills programs: A model of family context and health belief predictors. Journal of Family Psychology, 9(3), 294–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (1996). Illustrating a framework for rural prevention research: Project Family studies of rural family participation and outcomes. In R. D. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency (pp. 299–328). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., & Redmond, C. (2000). Research on family engagement in preventive interventions: Toward improved use of scientific findings in primary prevention practice. Journal of Primary Prevention, 21(2), 267–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Hockaday, C., & Shin, C. (1996). Barriers to participation in family skills preventive interventions and their evaluations: A replication and extension. Family Relations, 45, 247–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Kahn, J., & Shin, C. (1997). A prospective validation study of inclination, belief, and context predictors of family-focused prevention involvement. Family Process, 36, 403–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Lepper, H. (1999b). Alcohol initiation outcomes of universal family-focused preventive interventions: One-and two-year follow-ups of a controlled study. Journal of Studies on Alcohol (Suppl. 13), 103-111. Invited article for Alcohol and the family: Opportunities for prevention [Special issue].

  • Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1998a). Direct and indirect latent-variable parenting outcomes of two universal family-focused preventive interventions: Extending a public health-oriented research base. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66(2), 385–399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2000b). Reducing adolescents' hostile and aggressive behaviors: Randomized trial effects of a brief family intervention four years past baseline. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 154, 1248–1257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2000c). Modeling factors influencing enrollment in family-focused preventive intervention research. Prevention Science, 1(4), 213–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (2001). Randomized trial of brief family interventions for general populations: Adolescent substance use outcomes four years following baseline. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 69(4), 627–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Shin, C., Lepper, H., Haggerty, K., & Wall, M. (1998b). Risk moderation of parent and child outcomes in a preventive intervention: A test and replication. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68(4), 565–579. Invited article for special section on preventive intervention research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., Redmond, C., Trudeau, L., & Shin, C. (2002). Longitudinal substance initiation outcomes for a universal preventive intervention combining family and school programs. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 16(2), 129–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoth, R., Reyes, M. L., Redmond, C., & Shin, C. (1999c). Assessing a public health approach to delay onset and progression of adolescent substance use: Latent transition and loglinear analyses of longitudinal family preventive intervention outcomes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(5), 619–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, T. K., & Biglan, A. (1998). Behavioral family interventions for improving child-rearing: A review of the literature for clinicians and policy makers. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1(1), 41–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandersman, A., Goodman, R., & Butterfoss, F. (1997). Understanding coalitions and how they operate. In M. Minkler (Ed.), Community organizing and community building for health. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wandersman, A., Morrissey, E., Davino, K., Seybolt, D., Crusto, C., Nation, M., Goodman, R., & Imm, P. (1998). Comprehensive quality programming and accountability: Eight essential strategies for implementing successful prevention programs. Journal of Primary Prevention, 19, 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitbeck, L. B., & King, K. (2001, August). Bii-Zin-Da-De-Dah: The listening to one another prevention program. Paper presented at the Second National Conference on Drug Abuse Prevention Research, Washington, DC.

  • Zins, J. E., Elias, M. J., Greenberg, M. T., & Pruett, M. K. (2000). Increasing implementation success in prevention programs. Journal of Education and Psychological Consultation, 11(1), 1–2.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Spoth, R.L., Redmond, C. Project Family Prevention Trials Based in Community–University Partnerships: Toward Scaled-Up Preventive Interventions. Prev Sci 3, 203–221 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019946617140

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019946617140

Navigation