are mass-media campaigns effective in preventing drug use? a … · 13 change. secondly, mass-media...
Post on 14-May-2020
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
For peer review only
Are Mass-media Campaigns Effective in Preventing Drug Use? A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Journal: BMJ Open
Manuscript ID: bmjopen-2014-007449
Article Type: Research
Date Submitted by the Author: 15-Dec-2014
Complete List of Authors: Allara, Elias; Università del Piemonte Orientale, Department of Translational Medicine; University of Torino, School of Public Health Ferri, Marica; European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Consequences, Responses and Best Practices unit Bo, Alessandra; European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Consequences, Responses and Best Practices unit Gasparrini, Antonio; London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Faggiano, Fabrizio; Università del Piemonte Orientale, Department of Translational Medicine
<b>Primary Subject Heading</b>:
Public health
Secondary Subject Heading: Addiction
Keywords: PUBLIC HEALTH, Substance misuse < PSYCHIATRY, Health policy < HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT, MENTAL HEALTH
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open on M
ay 14, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.
http://bmjopen.bm
j.com/
BM
J Open: first published as 10.1136/bm
jopen-2014-007449 on 3 Septem
ber 2015. Dow
nloaded from
For peer review only
1
Are Mass-media Campaigns Effective in Preventing Drug Use? A 1
Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 2
3
Authors and affiliations: 4
Elias Allara (1,2) *, Marica Ferri (3), Alessandra Bo (3), Antonio Gasparrini (4), Fabrizio 5
Faggiano (1) 6
7
(1) Department of Translational Medicine, Università del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy 8
(2) School of Public Health, University of Torino, Torino, Italy 9
(3) Consequences, Responses and Best Practices unit, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs 10
and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, Portugal 11
(4) London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK 12
13
* Contact person: 14
Elias Allara 15
Email: elias.allara@med.unipmn.it. Telephone: +39 348 5922753 16
Department of Translational Medicine, Università del Piemonte Orientale 17
Via Solaroli 17, 28100 Novara, Italy 18
19
Manuscript word court: 2654 20
Abstract word court: 228 21
Last update: 15 December 2014 22
23
Page 1 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
2
Note: This article is based on a Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Database of 1
Systematic Reviews (CDSR) 2013, Issue 6, DOI: .1002/14651858.CD009287.pub2 (see 2
www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as 3
new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the CDSR should be consulted for 4
the most recent version of the review.5
Page 2 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
3
Abstract 1
Objective To determine whether there is evidence that mass-media campaigns can be 2
effective in reducing illicit drug consumption and the intent to consume. 3
Design Systematic review of randomized and non-randomized studies. 4
Methods We searched 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, ProQuest Dissertations & 5
Theses A&I, and CENTRAL) and further explored 7 additional resources to obtain both 6
published and unpublished materials. We appraised the quality of included studies using 7
standardized tools. We carried out meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and a 8
pooled analysis of interrupted time-series and controlled before-and-after studies. 9
Results We identified 19 studies comprising 184,811 participants. Pooled analyses and 10
narrative synthesis provided mixed evidence of effectiveness. Eight interventions evaluated 11
with randomized controlled trials leaned toward no evidence of an effect, both on drug use 12
(standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.15 to 0.12) and 13
the intention to use drugs (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.04). Four campaigns provided some 14
evidence of beneficial effects in preventing drug use and two interventions provided evidence 15
of iatrogenic effects. 16
Conclusions Studies were considerably heterogeneous in type of mass-media intervention, 17
outcome measures, underlying theory, comparison groups, and design. Such factors can 18
contribute to explaining the observed variability in results. Due to the risk of adverse effects, 19
caution is needed in disseminating mass-media campaigns tackling drug use. Large studies 20
conducted with appropriate methodology are warranted to consolidate the evidence base.21
Page 3 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
4
Strengths and limitations of this study 1
• This systematic review is based on an expanded evidence base of both published and 2
unpublished findings and aims to determine whether mass-media campaigns can be 3
effective in preventing the use of or intention to use illicit drugs. 4
• Pooled analyses of eight mass-media interventions provide no evidence of an effect on 5
drug use or intention to use illicit drugs. Four interventions provide evidence of 6
beneficial effects. Two interventions provide evidence of iatrogenic effects. 7
• Due to the paucity and inconsistency of available evidence we cannot draw general 8
conclusions as to whether mass-media interventions are effective in preventing the 9
use of or intention to use illicit drugs. 10
• This review provides an insight into research gaps around the impact of mass-media 11
drug prevention interventions and can serve to highlight that new campaigns should 12
be implemented in the framework of rigorous evaluation studies, in order to avoid 13
dissemination of interventions that are ineffective or have unintended effects. 14
15
Page 4 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
5
Introduction 1
Mass-media campaigns are a powerful means for disseminating health promotion messages. 2
A wide and diverse audience can be reached through television commercials, the Internet, 3
mobile phones, newspapers, and roadside advertising hoardings. In the field of drug addiction 4
and dependence, adverts may contribute to shaping patterns of drug use and the intention to 5
use drugs, as well as modifying mediators such as awareness, knowledge, and attitudes about 6
drugs. 7
8
However, ethical and economic considerations are often raised. Mass-media campaigns—9
unlike other health interventions—are imposed on populations that have not consented to 10
their implementation.[1] This is a considerable ethical issue in modern, person-centred public 11
health, where taking decisions shared with the public is essential for promoting behaviour 12
change. Secondly, mass-media campaigns can be very expensive, especially when 13
implemented at national or state level. Large-scale purchasing of public service 14
announcement time during popular shows and broad dissemination via printed media is often 15
accessible only to governmental institutions. For example, the first and second versions of the 16
U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy’s National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign cost 17
2.7 billion dollars over more than 10 years.[2] Although such campaigns underwent careful 18
evaluation, most mass-media interventions are not developed in compliance with the classical 19
circle of public health, which consists in designing interventions based on evidence and in 20
evaluating their impact. 21
22
Page 5 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
6
A systematic review of the studies assessing media campaigns aiming to prevent use of illicit 1
drugs can inform future strategies and help design effective campaigns. The objective of this 2
review is to assess the effectiveness of mass-media campaigns in preventing or reducing drug 3
use or the intention to use illicit drugs among young people. 4
5
6
Methods 7
We conducted this systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for 8
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)[3] statement and with the procedures 9
specified in a previously published protocol.[4] As described in detail previously,[5] we 10
systematically searched 4 electronic databases: MEDLINE (1966 to 29 January 29 2013), 11
EMBASE (1974 to 30 January 2013), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I (1861 to 3 February 12
2013), and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 1). Search strategies are available as supplementary files 13
(Appendix 1). We further explored 7 additional resources to obtain both published and 14
unpublished materials: four websites of registered studies (i.e., http://www.controlled-15
trials.com, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/, http://clinicaltrials.gov/, 16
https://eudract.emea.europa.eu/), references embedded in book chapters, references 17
included in the annual national reports written by EMCDDA national focal points, and any 18
publications recommended by prominent researchers in the field. We did not set any 19
constraints, such as language or time, to our search. 20
21
Page 6 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
7
Selection Criteria 1
As described in detail previously,[5] we considered studies involving participants under the 2
age of 26 and evaluating mass-media campaigns explicitly aimed at influencing the use or 3
intention to use illicit drugs.[6] The following were deemed acceptable comparison groups: (i) 4
no intervention; (ii) community-based or school-based drug prevention programmes; (iii) 5
lower exposure to intervention; (iv) time before exposure to intervention. We included 6
randomized controlled trial (RCT), cohort studies, interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, and 7
controlled before and after (CBA) studies providing evidence on drug use or intention not to 8
use, to reduce use or to stop use of illicit drugs. 9
10
Two authors independently inspected search hits by reading titles and abstracts and assessed 11
studies for inclusion. Any disagreement was solved by consensus. Multiple publications 12
pertaining to the same study were collated as one single study. 13
14
Quality Appraisal 15
Four authors independently performed quality assessments, and any disagreement was 16
solved by consensus. We contacted study authors whenever information was missing or 17
unclear. 18
19
We used standardized assessment tools for each study design—details are available as 20
supplementary materials (Appendix 2). For RCTs, we used the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of 21
Bias assessment tool.[7] For cohort studies, we followed the Scottish Intercollegiate 22
Page 7 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
8
Guidelines Network (SIGN) Quality Criteria.[8] For ITS and CBA studies, we used the tool 1
recommended by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group.[9] 2
3
Statistical Analysis 4
As for RCTs, we performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled effect of 5
mass-media interventions on drug use whilst accounting for between study heterogeneity, as 6
described in detail previously.[5] We carried out a fixed effects meta-analysis to estimate the 7
pooled intervention effect on intention to use drugs. We tested between study heterogeneity 8
using the chi-squared test and the I2 statistic. Since most studies assessed their outcome 9
variables with different scales, we used standardized mean difference as the summary 10
measure of choice. For two clustered RCTs,[10,11] we inflated standard errors to account for 11
within-cluster correlations.[7] 12
13
We pooled the effect estimates of the Meth Project studies using mixed effects logistic 14
regression.[12–16] We fitted the following model: logit(useij) = β0 + u0j + β1timei + β2agei + 15
β3intervi + β4age×intervi, in which use was prevalence of methamphetamine use, time was a 16
continuous variable, age and intervention were two-level categorical variables.[17] We 17
allowed log odds of methamphetamine use to vary randomly by each j-th state. 18
19
20
Results 21
Out of 18,343 titles and abstracts, we selected 24 papers corresponding to 19 individual 22
studies (Figure 1). 23
Page 8 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
9
1
Study Characteristics 2
Overall, 184,811 subjects were included, with most studies comprising participants who were 3
aged between 10 and 19 years old (Table 1). Although most studies included both boys and 4
girls, two studies focused on girls.[18,19] One study considered Asian-Americans as the only 5
ethnic group eligible for inclusion,[18] whilst the other studies did not focus on any specific 6
ethnic groups. Seventeen studies were conducted in the U.S., one in the U.S. and Canada,[19] 7
and one in Australia.[11] 8
9
Eleven studies (58%) evaluated multi-component interventions, 3 regarding radio/ television 10
and printed advertising,[10,20,21] and 8 regarding radio and television commercials, printed 11
advertisements, and Internet advertising.[2,12–16,22,23] Eight studies evaluated standalone 12
interventions, 4 consisting in radio and television commercials,[24–27] and 4 consisting in 13
Internet-based interventions.[11,18,19,28] The included studies in this review were grounded 14
in a wide range of underlying theories (Table 1). 15
16
Comparison groups varied considerably across studies. For thirteen studies (68%), the 17
comparison group consisted in no exposure to any intervention. Four studies compared high 18
exposure vs. low exposure to the same mass media intervention.[2,21–23] For one study, the 19
comparison group consisted in the standard drug education curriculum.[11] One study had 20
four study arms consisting either in another intervention or no intervention.[26] 21
22
Page 9 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
10
Eight studies were conducted in an experimental setting by explicitly inviting participants and 1
these studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[10,11,18,19,25–28] Ten studies were 2
conducted in a field setting without explicitly inviting participants, as would usually happen 3
with most mass-media campaigns. Of them, 2 were cohort studies,[22,23] 6 were 4
ITS,[2,12,14–16,24] and 2 were CBA studies.[13,20] One study had a double design as it was 5
conducted in an experimental setting with a RCT design, and in a field setting with a cohort 6
design.[21] When specified, follow-up varied from 6 months [19,28] to 4.7 years.[22] 7
8
Study Quality 9
On the whole, the quality of the RCTs is acceptable (Table 2). As described in detail 10
previously,[5] the strongest domain appears to be the risk of attrition bias and the weakest 11
domain the risk of selection bias (unclear description of randomization procedure). In one 12
paper findings of secondary outcomes were reported only as a predictor of the primary 13
outcome, and the paper concerned was deemed at high risk for reporting bias.[19] 14
All cohort studies focused on a clear and appropriate question. Sub-group comparisons 15
between participants and drop-outs were carried out only in one study.[23] The same study, 16
however, failed to control for potential confounders. 17
The proportion of subjects with no missing data was reported only in one controlled CBA 18
study.[20] Potential confounders were accounted for only in one ITS study [2] and in one CBA 19
study.[20] A formal test of trend was not performed in the five Meth Project studies.[12–16] 20
One ITS study [2] and the two CBA studies [13,20] had three or less data points, which are 21
generally considered insufficient for drawing reliable conclusions with regard to intervention 22
effectiveness. 23
Page 10 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
11
1
Effects of Mass-media Campaigns 2
Use of Illicit Drugs 3
Experimental studies. Pooled analyses of five RCTs [10,11,18,19,28] comprising n=5,470 4
subjects showed no evidence (p=0.79) of an effect of mass-media campaigns in modifying use 5
of illicit drugs (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.15 6
to 0.12) (Figure 2 and Table 3). There was some evidence (p=0.020) of heterogeneity between 7
studies. 8
The RCT part of a mixed RCT-cohort study (n=3,236) found evidence of effectiveness 9
(p=0.026) for a media-community intervention (odds ratio [OR] 0.60; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94) 10
(Table 3).[21] 11
12
Field studies. Two studies found that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) 13
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign (first version) increased use of illicit drugs among 14
adolescents (Table 3). One study (n=3,529) reported a significant increase in past year-use of 15
marijuana (OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.65).[22] The other study (n=2,515) found some evidence 16
(‘p<0.05’) of a iatrogenic effect among those aged 15 to 18 (mean change = 0.144), whilst 17
there was no evidence (‘p>0.05’) of an effect among those aged 13 to 14 (mean change = -18
0.022).[23] 19
The revamped version of the same ONDCP campaign, Above the Influence, was found 20
effective in a mixed RCT-cohort study (n=3,236), whose cohort part found strong evidence 21
(p<0.001) of effectiveness (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.35).[21] On a similar note were the 22
findings of an ITS study (n=130,245) which evaluated Above the Influence and found evidence 23
Page 11 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
12
of reductions in marijuana use in the past month (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.87) among 1
eighth-grade girls.[2] 2
The pooled findings of the five Meth Project studies (n=26,273) suggested no evidence of a 3
change in past-month use of methamphetamine among subjects aged 12 to 17 (OR 1.16; 95% 4
CI 0.83 to 1.61), nor among those aged 18 to 24 (OR 1.63; 95% CI 0.70 to 3.79) (Figure 3(a) 5
and Table 3). There was, however, evidence (p=0.001) of a reduction in past-year use of 6
methamphetamine among those aged 12 to 17 (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.81), whilst there 7
was no evidence of a similar effect among those aged 18 to 24 (OR 0.70; 95 % CI 0.34 to 1.45) 8
(Figure 3(b) and Table 3). 9
One ITS (n=6,371) showed evidence of effectiveness for past 30-day use of marijuana among 10
high sensation seekers (p=0.001 for the Fayette sample, p=0.001 for the first campaign in the 11
Knox sample, p=0.002 for the second campaign in the Knox sample).[24] 12
One CBA study found an increase in use of LSD (‘p<0.001’) (Table 3) whilst no evidence 13
(‘p>0.05’) of differences were found for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamine, and heroin.[20] 14
15
Intention to Use Drugs 16
Experimental studies. In one meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled studies involving 1,270 17
subjects, there was no evidence of an effect (p=0.21) of media campaigns in changing 18
intention to use drugs (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.04) (Figure 2 and Table 3).[18,25–27] 19
There was no evidence (p=0.840) of heterogeneity across studies. 20
21
Page 12 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
13
Field studies. One study (n=2,915) found some evidence (p=0.053) of a reduction in intentions 1
to use marijuana (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00) (Table 3) for the first version of the ONDCP’s 2
media campaign.[22] 3
4
5
Discussion 6
Mass-media campaigns are commonly used throughout the world to tackle a broad array of 7
preventable risk factors or injuries. Such campaigns are seldom evaluated, thus making it 8
difficult to inform policymakers regarding their effectiveness and sustainability. In this 9
panorama of overall uncertainty, mass-media campaigns tackling tobacco and traffic 10
accidents are noteworthy exceptions as they have been evaluated more frequently and have 11
shown strong evidence for benefit.[29] 12
13
In our attempt to summarize evidence on the effectiveness of mass-media campaigns 14
targeting illicit drugs, we included 19 studies evaluating a number of heterogeneous 15
interventions. We grouped interventions according to whether they were evaluated with 16
studies conducted in experimental settings in which participants were aware of being 17
exposed to media interventions; or were assessed with studies carried out in a field 18
environment which is more likely to show the real-life effects of large national media 19
campaigns—but is also more prone to risk of bias. 20
21
Findings appear to vary considerably according to the type of intervention and study design. 22
Pooled analyses of 8 interventions evaluated in an experimental setting provided no evidence 23
Page 13 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
14
of beneficial effects for use or intention to use illicit drugs, an indicator of possible future 1
behaviour.[30,31] Four interventions evaluated with 8 field studies revealed some evidence of 2
beneficial effects: (i) the revamped campaign by the Office of National Drug Control Policy 3
(ONDCP) called Above the Influence, which was found effective in one study and effective 4
among eighth-grade girls in another study; (ii) the Be Under Your Own Influence media-5
community intervention; (iii) the Meth Project campaign, which was found effective on past-6
year methamphetamine use, although only among adolescents aged 12 to 17 years old; and 7
(iv) the U.S. televised anti-marijuana campaigns broadcasted in Fayette County (Lexington), 8
Kentucky, and in Knox County (Knoxville), Tennessee, which were found to be effective on 9
high-sensation seekers. However, 2 interventions evaluated with 3 field studies were found to 10
have iatrogenic effects: most notably, the first version of the ONDCP’s media campaign My 11
Anti Drug, which was evaluated by 2 studies and found to increase use of marijuana. An 12
adverse effect was also found for a media-community intervention evaluated by a CBA study 13
which provided evidence of increased frequency of LSD use. 14
15
Some of the studies could not be pooled due to the large variation in mass-media 16
intervention type and study design. Similar interventions were often evaluated with different 17
study designs whilst different interventions were sometimes evaluated with the same study 18
design. Pooled analyses could thus be undertaken only for a few similar interventions 19
evaluated with the same study design, and such small sets of pooled studies did not allow 20
carrying out sensitivity analyses. 21
22
Page 14 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
15
We did not set any time or language constraints to our search, accepted all types of 1
controlled study designs, and obtained unpublished data by establishing direct contact with 2
the authors of the original papers. Unfortunately, due to the paucity and inconsistency of 3
available evidence we cannot draw general conclusions as to whether media campaigns are 4
effective in preventing the use or the intention to use illicit drugs. This observation is in line 5
with the findings of similar reviews that used more restrictive inclusion criteria.[29,32] 6
7
An expanded evidence base would probably lead to a more detailed picture and avoid the 8
dissemination of ineffective and harmful campaigns.[33,34] In particular, we feel that further 9
RCTs are warranted to evaluate the efficacy of media interventions in an experimental 10
setting. Cohort or ITS designs should also be conducted to assess the effectiveness of mass-11
media campaigns in an environment closer to real life. ITS and CBA designs are both subtypes 12
of the broader cross sectional study design which experience tells us is not ideal for 13
intervention evaluation. However, this approach could be used whenever carrying out cohort 14
studies is not feasible.[35] 15
16
17
Conclusions 18
Although relatively limited compared to other areas of primary prevention, the evidence base 19
accrued so far on media campaigns targeting illicit drugs allows us to make at least two 20
remarks. First, such campaigns can be evaluated—a fact that is often questioned in several 21
parts of the world—and properly conducted evaluation studies can provide benefits to both 22
Page 15 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
16
research and practice. Second, in the worst-case scenario, media campaigns can be not only 1
ineffective, but even harmful. Contrary to common belief, antidrug media campaigns may be 2
damaging and their dissemination is ethically unacceptable without a prior assessment of 3
their effects. 4
5
Careful evaluation of media campaigns is essential in order to avoid the dissemination of 6
ineffective and iatrogenic interventions, and new campaigns should be implemented in the 7
framework of rigorous evaluation studies. A better understanding of which media 8
interventions work best is likely to result in a more effective prevention of drug use and 9
increased efficiency in the management of public resources. 10
11
Page 16 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
17
Acknowledgements 1
We are grateful to the Cochrane Drug and Alcohol Group for their support in publishing the 2
Cochrane review from which this paper has been extracted.[5] We thank Gregor Burkhart 3
and V. Anna Gyamathy for their input to the drafting of the protocol for this review, and 4
Marie-Christine Ashby for her carefully proofreading of the manuscript. We are grateful to 5
Ling Fang, John Horan, Nicola Newton, Philip Palmgreen, Joan Polansky, Michael Slater, 6
Jennifer Stagnaro, Violeta Taneva, and Marco Yzer for their useful advice and for providing us 7
with their studies' unpublished data whenever possible. 8
9
Contributorship statement 10
EA structured and drafted this paper. MF and FF conceived the systematic review from which 11
this paper originates and overviewed the inclusion of studies and their methodological 12
assessment. MF and EA selected the studies for inclusion. EA and AB extracted the data from 13
the studies and contributed to writing the review. EA contacted study authors. EA and AB did 14
the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. AG and EA conducted the meta-analysis of 15
interrupted time-series studies. 16
All authors regularly discussed each step of review process and equally participated in each 17
decision regarding the studies and the analysis. All authors revised the paper. All authors read 18
and approved the final version of this manuscript. 19
20
Page 17 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
18
Competing interests 1
We declare no competing interests. 2
3
Funding 4
No specific funding was available for this review and review protocol. All authors received 5
funding directly from their respective institutions, which allowed them to conduct this study 6
during office hours and to use working resources including IT equipment and journal access. 7
8
Data sharing 9
Data and statistical code used for pooled analyses are available and can be requested from 10
the corresponding author (Elias Allara, elias.allara@med.unipmn.it). 11
12
Page 18 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
19
References 1
1 Sumnall HR, Bellis MA. Can health campaigns make people ill? The iatrogenic potential 2
of population-based cannabis prevention. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61:930–3
1. doi:10.1136/jech.2007.060277 4
2 Carpenter CS, Pechmann C. Exposure to the Above the Influence antidrug 5
advertisements and adolescent marijuana use in the United States, 2006-2008. Am J 6
Public Health 2011;101:948–54. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.300040 7
3 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews 8
and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535. 9
doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 10
4 Ferri M, Burkhart G, Allara E, et al. Media campaigns for the prevention of illicit drug 11
use in young people. Cochrane database Syst Rev Published Online First: 2011. 12
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009287 13
5 Ferri M, Allara E, Bo A, et al. Media campaigns for the prevention of illicit drug use in 14
young people. Cochrane database Syst Rev 2013;6:CD009287. 15
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009287.pub2 16
6 Brinn MP, Carson K V, Esterman AJ, et al. Mass media interventions for preventing 17
smoking in young people. Cochrane database Syst Rev 2010;:CD001006. 18
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001006.pub2 19
7 Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 20
2011.www.cochrane-handbook.org 21
8 Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Critical Appraisal: Notes And Checklists. 22
2010.http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/checklists.html (accessed 12 Sep2010). 23
9 Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Draft EPOC Methods 24
Paper Including Interrupted Time Series (ITS) Designs in a EPOC Review. 1998. 25
10 Slater MD, Kelly KJ, Edwards RW, et al. Combining in-school and community-based 26
media efforts: reducing marijuana and alcohol uptake among younger adolescents. 27
Health Educ Res 2006;21:157–67. doi:10.1093/her/cyh056 28
11 Newton NC, Teesson M, Vogl LE, et al. Internet-based prevention for alcohol and 29
cannabis use: final results of the Climate Schools course. Addiction 2010;105:749–59. 30
doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02853.x 31
12 The Meth Project. Colorado Meth: Use & Attitudes Survey 2011. 2011. 32
Page 19 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
20
13 The Meth Project. Georgia Meth: Use & Attitudes Survey 2011. 2011. 1
14 The Meth Project. Idaho Meth: Use & Attitudes Survey 2010. 2010. 2
15 The Meth Project. Hawaii Meth: Use & Attitudes Survey 2011. 2011. 3
16 The Meth Project. Wyoming Meth: Use & Attitudes Survey 2011. 2011. 4
17 Gilmour S, Degenhardt L, Hall W, et al. Using intervention time series analyses to assess 5
the effects of imperfectly identifiable natural events: a general method and example. 6
BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:16. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-16 7
18 Fang L, Schinke SP, Cole KCA. Preventing substance use among early Asian-American 8
adolescent girls: initial evaluation of a web-based, mother-daughter program. J Adolesc 9
Health 2010;47:529–32. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.03.011 10
19 Schwinn TM, Schinke SP, Di Noia J. Preventing drug abuse among adolescent girls: 11
outcome data from an internet-based intervention. Prev Sci 2010;11:24–32. 12
doi:10.1007/s11121-009-0146-9 13
20 Miller WR, Toscova RT, Miller JH, et al. A theory-based motivational approach for 14
reducing alcohol/drug problems in college. Health Educ Behav 2000;27:744–59. 15
21 Slater MD, Kelly KJ, Lawrence FR, et al. Assessing media campaigns linking marijuana 16
non-use with autonomy and aspirations: “Be Under Your Own Influence” and ONDCP’s 17
“Above the Influence”. Prev Sci 2011;12:12–22. doi:10.1007/s11121-010-0194-1 18
22 Hornik R. Personal Influence and the Effects of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media 19
Campaign. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 2006;608:282–300. 20
doi:10.1177/0002716206291972 21
23 Scheier LM, Grenard JL. Influence of a nationwide social marketing campaign on 22
adolescent drug use. J Health Commun 2010;15:240–71. 23
doi:10.1080/10810731003686580 24
24 Palmgreen P, Donohew L, Lorch EP, et al. Television campaigns and adolescent 25
marijuana use: tests of sensation seeking targeting. Am J Public Health 2001;91:292–6. 26
25 Polansky JM, Buki LP, Horan JJ, et al. The Effectiveness of Substance Abuse Prevention 27
Videotapes with Mexican American Adolescents. Hisp J Behav Sci 1999;21:186–98. 28
doi:10.1177/0739986399212005 29
26 Yzer MC, Cappella JN, Fishbein M, et al. The effectiveness of gateway communications 30
in anti-marijuana campaigns. J Health Commun 2003;8:129–43. 31
doi:10.1080/10810730305695 32
Page 20 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
21
27 Zhao X, Sayeed S, Cappella J, et al. Targeting norm-related beliefs about marijuana use 1
in an adolescent population. Health Commun 2006;19:187–96. 2
doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1903_1 3
28 Lee CM, Neighbors C, Kilmer JR, et al. A brief, web-based personalized feedback 4
selective intervention for college student marijuana use: a randomized clinical trial. 5
Psychol Addict Behav 2010;24:265–73. doi:10.1037/a0018859 6
29 Wakefield MA, Loken B, Hornik RC. Use of mass media campaigns to change health 7
behaviour. Lancet 2010;376:1261–71. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60809-4 8
30 Litchfield R, White K. Young Adults’ Willingness and Intentions to use Amphetamines : 9
An Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action. E-Journal Appl Psychol 2006;2:45–51. 10
doi:10.7790/ejap.v2i1.34 11
31 Olds RS, Thombs DL, Tomasek JR. Relations between normative beliefs and initiation 12
intentions toward cigarette, alcohol and marijuana. J Adolesc Health 2005;37:75. 13
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.09.020 14
32 Werb D, Mills EJ, Debeck K, et al. The effectiveness of anti-illicit-drug public-service 15
announcements: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health 16
2011;65:834–40. doi:10.1136/jech.2010.125195 17
33 Faggiano F, Giannotta F, Allara E. Strengthening Prevention Science to Ensure 18
Effectiveness of Intervention in Practice: Setting up an International Agenda. In: 19
Sloboda Z, Petras H, eds. Defining Prevention Science. Boston, MA: : Springer US 2014. 20
597–615. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7424-2_26 21
34 Faggiano F, Allara E, Giannotta F, et al. Europe Needs a Central, Transparent, and 22
Evidence-Based Approval Process for Behavioural Prevention Interventions. PLOS Med 23
2014;11:e1001740. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001740 24
35 Sackett D, Straus S, Richardson W, et al. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and 25
teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: : Churchill Livingstone 2000. 26
27
Page 21 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
22
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram
Note: adapted from a previous publication.[5]
Page 22 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
23
Figure 2. Pooling of Randomized Controlled Trials
(a) Drug use
(b) Intention to use drugs
Note: adapted from a previous publication.[5]
Page 23 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
24
Figure 3. Pooling of the Meth Project Interrupted Time-Series studies: Predicted and Observed Probabilities
(a) Past-month Use of Methamphetamines
(b) Past-year Use of Methamphetamines
Note: adapted from a previous publication.[5]
Page 24 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
25
Table 1. Characteristics of Included Studies
Study Underpinning
theory Design (goal)a
Interventionb Comparisonc Primary outcome
Secondary outcome(s) Analysis sample
Follow-up (total time) [months]
Polansky 1999[25] Decision theory RCT (E) PSA Other –
Intention to use; attitudes; knowledge and
disposition to select socially appropriate
responses
312 n.a. (n.s.)
Miller 2000[20] Self regulation theory CBA (F) PSA; printed No intervention
Use of drugs (incl. cannabis and cocaine)
Risk perception ; problems related to drug
use 1,024 12 (18)
Palmgreen 2001[24] Influence of sensation-seeking on drug use
ITS (F) PSA No intervention Past-30-day use of marijuana – 6,371 n.a. (32)
Yzer 2003[26]
Theories of behavioral change: persuasion effects
RCT (E) PSA No
intervention; other
–
Intention to use marijuana; attitude; perceptions about
marijuana
418 n.a. (n.s.)
Slater 2006[10]
Social-ecological framework (norms and expectations influence drug use)
RCT (E) PSA; printed No intervention Lifetime and
past-30-day use of marijuana
– 4,216 24 (42)
Zhao 2006[27] Normative beliefs RCT (E) PSA No intervention – Intention to use; beliefs
towards marijuana; social norms
435 n.a. (n.s.)
Hornik 2006[22] Unclear Cohort (F)
PSA; printed; internet
Lower exposure
Lifetime, past-year, and past-30-day use of
marijuana
Intention to use; attitudes and self
efficacy; perceptions and social norms
8,117 56 (58)
Scheier 2010[23] Social marketing Cohort (F)
PSA; printed; internet
Lower exposure
Past-12-month cannabis
intoxications – 2,515 n.a. (48)
Schwinn 2010[19] Social learning theory RCT (E) Internet No intervention Past-30-day
substance use – 236 6 (n.s.)
Lee 2010[28] Readiness to change RCT (E) Internet No intervention Past-90-day use
of marijuana Intention to change
marijuana use; consequences
341 6 (n.s.)
Fang 2010[18] Family-oriented RCT (E) Internet No intervention Past-30-day use of marijuana
Intention to use marijuana 216 6.25 (16)
Newton 2010[11] Social influence approach RCT (E) Internet Other Use of cannabis Cannabis knowledge;
attitudes; related harms 724 12 (21)
Meth Project studies[12–16]
Perception of risk and perception of social disapproval are correlated with drug consumption
4 ITS and 1 CBA
(F)
PSA; printed; internet No intervention
Past-30-day use of
methamphetamine
Attitudes on methamphetamine and
other drugs; perceptions; information sources and advertising awareness;
26,405
n.a. (Colorado
26; Georgia
18; Hawaii 25;
Idaho 40; Wyoming
34)
Page 25 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
26
Slater 2011[21]
Autonomy and aspiration perceptions as mediators marijuana use
RCT (E); Cohort
(F) PSA; printed Lower
exposure
Lifetime, past-90-day and past-
30-day use of marijuana
Autonomy and aspiration inconsistent with marijuana use
3,236 24 (42)
Carpenter 2011[2]
Unclear; evaluated many heterogeneous mass-media campaigns
ITS (F) PSA; printed; internet
Lower exposure
Past-30-day and lifetime use of
marijuana – 130,245 n.a. (36)
n.a. = not applicable. n.s. = not specified. a ITS = interrupted time-series. RCT = randomized controlled trial. CBA = controlled before and after. Cohort = prospective cohort. E = experimental/efficacy setting. F = field/effectiveness setting. b PSA = public service announcement (e.g., television/radio). c Other = other intervention or different combination of same intervention. Lower exposure = lower exposure to same intervention.
Page 26 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
27
Table 2. Risk of Bias of Included Studies
Designa Study Random
sequence generation
Allocation concealment
Blinding of outcome
assessment Attrition
Selective reporting
Comparability of groups
Acceptance among
recruited
Attrition by exposure
status
Strategies alternative to blinding
Discussion of potential
confounders
Statistical accuracy
Overall risk of bias
(cohort)
Sufficient data points
for inference
RCT
Polansky 1999[25] Yzer 2003[26] Slater 2006[10] Zhao 2006[27] Schwinn 2010[19] Lee 2010[28] Fang 2010[18] Newton 2010[11]
Coho
rt Slater 2011[21] b,c Hornik 2006[22] b Scheier 2010[23] b
ITS
Palmgreen 2001[24] d Carpenter 2011[2] d 4 Meth Project studies[12,14–16] d
CBA 1 Meth Project study[13] d Miller 2000[20] d
████ = low risk of bias. ████ = unclear risk of bias. ████ = high risk of bias. White = not applicable Study quality was appraised with three different tools depending on study design. Redundant or similar items were collapsed. The 'the intervention was independent of other changes' item of the ITS checklist was considered equivalent to the 'discussion of potential confounder' item for cohort studies, the 'formal test for trend' ITS item was considered equivalent to the 'statistical accuracy' item for cohort studies, and the 'completeness of dataset' ITS item was considered equivalent to the 'attrition' item for RCT and cohort studies. a ITS = interrupted time-series. RCT = randomized controlled trial. CBA = controlled before and after. Cohort = prospective cohort. b All cohort studies had low risk of bias for the following items: 'likelihood of outcome already present at enrolment', 'clarity of outcome', 'reliability of assessment of exposure', 'use of other sources to corroborate outcome measure', and 'multiple measure of exposure'. c Slater 2011 is a mixed RCT-cohort study. d All ITS studies and the CBA study had low risk of bias for the following items: 'intervention unlikely to affect data collection', and 'reliable primary outcome measure(s)'.
Page 27 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 September 2015. Downloaded from
For peer review only
28
Table 3. Main Findings for Use or Intention to Use Illicit Drugs
Pooling Outcome Designa References Sub-groups No. of
subjects exp vs. ctrlb
Effect measure
Effect size (95% CI) or effect direction (p-
value)c
Heterogeneity p-valued
Pool
ed a
naly
ses
Use of illicit drugs RCT
Slater 2006[10]; Fang 2010[18]; Newton 2010[11]; Schwinn 2010[19]; Lee 2010[28]
– 2,701 vs. 2,769
SMD, random effects
-0.02 (-0.15 to 0.12) 0.020 *
Intention to use illicit drugs RCT
Polansky 1999[25]; Yzer 2003[26]; Zhao 2006[27]; Fang 2010[18]
– 771 vs. 499 SMD, fixed effects -0.07 (-0.19 to 0.04) 0.840
Past-month use of methamphetamine
4 ITS and 1 CBA
Meth Project studies[12–16]
age 12-17 14,865 vs. 7,497
OR, random effects
1.16 (0.83 to 1.61) –
age 18-24 347 vs. 632 OR,
random effects
1.63 (0.70 to 3.79) –
Past-year use of methamphetamine
4 ITS and 1 CBA
Meth Project studies[12–16]
age 12-17 17,105 vs 7,497
OR, random effects
0.59 (0.43 to 0.81) ** –
age 18-24 1,039 vs. 632 OR,
random effects
0.70 (0.34 to 1.45) –
Sing
le s
tudi
es
Lifetime, past-90-day, or past-30-day use of marijuana
RCT (community-
media) Slater 2011[21]
–
n.a. (3,236)
OR, random effects
0.60 (0.38 to 0.94) * –
Cohort (mass-media)
– OR,
random effects
0.26 (0.19 to 0.35) *** –
Past-year use of marijuana Cohort Hornik 2006[22]
– n.a. (3,529) OR, fixed effects 1.21 (1.19 to 1.65) * –
Intention to use marijuana – n.a. (2,915) OR, fixed
effects 0.89 (0.79 to 1.00) § –
Past-12-month episodes of cannabis intoxication
Cohort Scheier 2010[23]
age 13-14
n.a. (2,515)
mean difference,
SEM -0.022 –
age 15-18 mean
difference, SEM
0.144 * –
Past-30-day use of marijuana among high sensation seekers
ITS Palmgreen 2001[24]
Fayette n.a. (3,174) test for slope ↓ (p=0.001) –
Knox, first campaign
n.a. (3,197)
test for slope ↓ (p=0.001)
Knox, second campaign
test for slope ↓ (p=0.002) –
Past-30-day use of marijuana (girls, 8th grade)
ITS Carpenter 2011[2] – n.a. (130,245) OR, fixed effects 0.67 (0.52 to 0.87) ** –
Frequency of use of 10 types of drugs
CBA Miller 2000[20] – 567 vs 431 mean
difference, ANOVA
for LSD: ↑ (p<0.001) for marijuana, cocaine,
amphetamine, and heroin: 'no longer
significant' differences
–
§ < 0.10 * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 OR = odds ratio SMD = standardized mean difference SEM = structural equation modeling a ITS = interrupted time-series. RCT = randomized controlled trial. CBA = controlled before and after. Cohort = prospective cohort. b n.a. = breakdowns of students exposed to the interventions were not available. Number of analyzed subjects is between brackets. c Whenever the effect size was not reported, ↓ = decreased use or intention to use, and ↑ = increased use or intention to use. d Heterogeneity test for meta-analyses of RCTs.
Page 28 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
29
Appendix 1. Search Strategy
Appendix 2. Quality Appraisal
Appendix 3. PRISMA Checklist
Page 29 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Appendix 1. Search Strategy
Note: search strategies have already been described in detail previously [5].
(a) PubMed (MEDLINE) Search Strategy
Search Query Items found
#16 Search (((#3) AND #4) AND #11) AND #15 5877
#15 Search ((#12) OR #13) OR #14 3,041,802
#14 Search adolescen*[tiab] OR preadolescen*[tiab] OR child*[tiab] OR teen*[tiab] OR youth*[tiab] OR young[tiab] OR kid*[tiab] OR juvenile*[tiab] OR minors[tiab] OR boy*[tiab] OR girl*[tiab]
1,662,519
#13 Search "Child"[Mesh] 1,457,004
#12 Search "Adolescent"[Mesh] 1,498,465
#11 Search ((((#5) OR #7) OR #8) OR #9) OR #10 797,788
#10
Search media[tiab] OR Communication*[tiab] OR audiovisual[tw] OR telecommunication*[tw] OR Educat*[tiab] OR radio[tw] OR television[tw] OR TV[tiab] OR internet[tw] OR campaign*[tw] OR advert*[tw] OR twitter[tw] OR facebook[tw] OR "instant messaging"[tw]
751,996
#9 Search "Telecommunications"[Mesh] 54,815
#8 Search Videotape Recording[Mesh] 9970
#7 Search "Internet"[Mesh] 43,359
#5 Search "Mass Media"[Mesh] 37,325
#4
Search "heroin"[Mesh] OR heroin[tiab] OR "Street Drugs"[Mesh] OR "Designer Drugs"[Mesh] OR "Crack Cocaine"[Mesh] OR "Lysergic Acid Diethylamide"[Mesh] OR drug*[tiab] OR polydrug[tiab] OR substance[tiab] OR hallucinogen*[tw] OR cocaine[tw] OR amphetamine*[tw] OR "lysergic acid diethylamide"[tw] OR LSD [tiab] OR ketamine[tw] OR cannabis[tw] OR marihuana[tw] OR marijuana[tiab] OR hashish[tw] OR steroid*[tw] OR morphine[tiab] OR ecstasy[tw] OR MDMA[tw] OR benzodiazepine[tw]
1,136,251
#3 Search (#1) OR #2 1,812,638
#2 Search abus*[tiab] OR consumption[tiab] OR misus*[tiab] OR use*[tiab] OR addict*[tiab] OR disorder*[tiab]
1,570,344
#1 Search "Substance-Related disorders"[Mesh] 344,574
(b) EMBASE Search Strategy
ID Query
#1 'substance abuse'/exp
#2 'drug abuse'/exp
#3 abus*:ab,ti OR consumption:ab,ti OR misus*:ab,ti OR use*:ab,ti OR addict*:ab,ti OR disorder*:ab,ti
#4 #1 OR #2 OR #3
#5
heroin:ab,ti OR drug*:ab,ti OR polydrug:ab,ti OR substance:ab,ti OR hallucinogen*:ab,ti OR cocaine:ab,ti OR amphetamine*:ab,ti OR 'lysergic acid diethylamide':ab,ti OR lsd:ab,ti OR ketamine:ab,ti OR cannabis:ab,ti OR marihuana:ab,ti OR marijuana:ab,ti OR hashish:ab,ti OR steroid*:ab,ti OR morphine:ab,ti OR ecstasy:ab,ti OR mdma:ab,ti OR benzodiazepine:ab,ti
#6 'diamorphine'/exp
#7 'designer drug'/exp
#8 'street drug'/exp
#9 'cocaine'/exp
Page 30 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
#10 'cannabis smoking'/exp
#11 #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10
#12 'mass medium'/exp
#13 'internet'/exp
#14 'videorecording'/exp
#15 'telecommunication'/exp
#16 media:ab,ti OR communication*:ab,ti OR audiovisual:ab,ti OR telecommunication*:ab,ti OR educat*:ab,ti OR radio:ab,ti OR television:ab,ti OR tv:ab,ti OR internet:ab,ti OR campaign*:ab,ti OR advert*:ab,ti OR twitter:ab,ti OR facebook:ab,ti
#17 #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16
#18 'adolescent'/exp
#19 'child'/exp
#20 adolescen*:ab,ti OR preadolescen*:ab,ti OR child*:ab,ti OR teen*:ab,ti OR youth*:ab,ti OR young:ab,ti OR kid*:ab,ti OR juvenile*:ab,ti OR minors:ab,ti OR boy*:ab,ti OR girl*:ab,ti
#21 #18 OR #19 OR #20
#22 #4 AND #11 AND #17 AND #21 AND [embase]/lim
(c) ProQuest Search Strategy
(media campaigns OR mass media) AND illicit drug* AND preventi*.
(d) CENTRAL Search Strategy
ID Search Hits
#1 MeSH descriptor: [Substance-Related Disorders] explode all trees 10,355
#2 ((stimulant* or polydrug* or drug* or substance) near/3 (abuse* or abusing or consumption or addict* or disorder* or intoxicat* or misus* or use*)):ti,ab
14,750
#3 (abuse* or abusing or consumption or addict* or disorder* or intoxicat* or misus* or use*):ti,ab 198,966
#4 MeSH descriptor: [Narcotics] explode all trees 681
#5 heroin:ti,ab 762
#6 MeSH descriptor: [Street Drugs] explode all trees 196
#7 MeSH descriptor: [Amphetamine] explode all trees 632
#8 (amphetamine* or dextroamphetamine* or methamphetamine or Methylamphetamine*):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)
1442
#9 (ecstasy or MDMA or hallucinogen*):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched) 234
#10 MeSH descriptor: [Cocaine] explode all trees 576
#11 (crack or cocaine):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched) 1953
#12 MeSH descriptor: [Cannabis] explode all trees 245
#13 (cannabis or marijuana or marihuana or Hashish):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)
1158
#14 (Lysergic next Acid):ti,ab,kw 76
#15 LSD:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched) 131
#16 (benzodiazepine* or barbiturate* or ketamine or solvent or inhalant):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)
6370
#17 (benzodiazepine* or barbiturate* or ketamine or solvent or inhalant):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)
6370
#18 #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 11,919
#19 #3 and #18 6547
#20 #1 or #2 or #19 26,077
Page 31 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
#21 MeSH descriptor: [Mass Media] explode all trees 1337
#22 MeSH descriptor: [Internet] explode all trees 1248
#23 MeSH descriptor: [Videotape Recording] explode all trees 790
#24 "Tv":ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched) 386
#25 (media or communication* or audiovisual or telecommunication* or radio or television or internet or campaign* or advert* or twitter or facebook) (Word variations have been searched)
27,766
#26 #21 or #22 or #23 or #24 or #25 28,828
#27 MeSH descriptor: [Adolescent] explode all trees 68,885
#28 adolescen* or preadolescen* or child* or teen* or youth* or young or kid* or juvenile* or minors or boy* or girl*:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)
157,753
#29 #27 or #28 157,753
#30 #20 and #26 and #29 566
Page 32 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Appendix 2. Details on Quality Appraisal
(a) Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials
The recommended approach for assessing risk of bias in studies included in Cochrane Reviews is a two-part
tool, addressing (a) sequence generation and allocation concealment, (b) blinding of participants and
providers, (c) blinding of outcome assessor, (d) incomplete outcome data, (e) selective outcome reporting,
and (f) other source of bias. Blinding of participants is not always applicable for mass media campaigns, and
we therefore considered blinding of personnel and outcome assessors. A study was deemed to have low
risk of bias for blinding if the data were obtained with a questionnaire administered anonymously or by
computer.
(b) Assessment of Cohort Studies
This tool comprises several questions intended to serve as guidance for the study assessors, regarding (a)
blinding of outcome assessment; (b) clarity of outcome; (c) likelihood of outcome already present at
enrolment; (d) use of other sources to corroborate outcome measure; (e) reliability of assessment of
exposure; (f) multiple measure of exposure; (g) attrition; (h) comparability of groups; (i) acceptance among
recruited; (j) attrition by exposure status; (k) strategies alternative to blinding; (l) discussion of potential
confounders; (m) statistical accuracy, and (n) overall risk of bias.
(c) Assessment of interrupted time series (ITS) and before and after (CBA)
studies
This tool requires assessing whether there is presence of (a) an intervention independent of other changes;
(b) sufficient data points to enable reliable statistical inference; (c) formal tests for trend; (d) an
intervention unlikely to affect data collection; (e) blinded assessment of primary outcome(s); (f)
completeness of dataset; (g) reliable primary outcome measures.
Page 33 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
PRISMA 2009 ChecklistPRISMA 2009 ChecklistPRISMA 2009 ChecklistPRISMA 2009 Checklist
Section/topic # Checklist item Reported on page #
TITLE
Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. 1
ABSTRACT
Structured summary 2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
3
INTRODUCTION
Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. 5,6
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
6
METHODS
Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
6
Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered,
language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
7
Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
6
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Appendix 1
Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
7
Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
7, 8, Appendix 2
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
7, 8, Appendix 2, protocol
Risk of bias in individual studies
12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
8, Appendix 2
Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). 8
Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency
(e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
8
Page 34 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 September 2015. Downloaded from
For peer review only
PRISMA 2009 ChecklistPRISMA 2009 ChecklistPRISMA 2009 ChecklistPRISMA 2009 Checklist
Page 1 of 2
Section/topic # Checklist item Reported on page #
Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
N/A
Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
8
RESULTS
Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
8, Figure 1
Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
9, 10, Table 1
Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12). 10, Table 2
Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Table 3, Figure 2, Figure 3
Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. 11-13,Table 3
Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). 10, Table 2
Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). 12, Table 3 (Meth Proj.)
DISCUSSION
Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
13, 14
Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
15
Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. 15, 16
FUNDING
Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
N/A
From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
For more information, visit: www.prisma-statement.org.
Page 2 of 2
Page 35 of 35
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 September 2015. Downloaded from
For peer review only
Are Mass-media Campaigns Effective in Preventing Drug Use? A Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Journal: BMJ Open
Manuscript ID: bmjopen-2014-007449.R1
Article Type: Research
Date Submitted by the Author: 25-Mar-2015
Complete List of Authors: Allara, Elias; Università del Piemonte Orientale, Department of Translational Medicine; University of Torino, School of Public Health Ferri, Marica; European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Consequences, Responses and Best Practices unit Bo, Alessandra; European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction, Consequences, Responses and Best Practices unit Gasparrini, Antonio; London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Faggiano, Fabrizio; Università del Piemonte Orientale, Department of Translational Medicine
<b>Primary Subject Heading</b>:
Public health
Secondary Subject Heading: Addiction
Keywords: PUBLIC HEALTH, Substance misuse < PSYCHIATRY, Health policy < HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT, MENTAL HEALTH
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open on M
ay 14, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.
http://bmjopen.bm
j.com/
BM
J Open: first published as 10.1136/bm
jopen-2014-007449 on 3 Septem
ber 2015. Dow
nloaded from
For peer review only
Are Mass-media Campaigns Effective in Preventing Drug Use? A
Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Authors and affiliations:
Elias Allara (1,2) *, Marica Ferri (3), Alessandra Bo (3), Antonio Gasparrini (4), Fabrizio
Faggiano (1)
(1) Department of Translational Medicine, Università del Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy
(2) School of Public Health, University of Torino, Torino, Italy
(3) Consequences, Responses and Best Practices unit, European Monitoring Centre for Drugs
and Drug Addiction, Lisbon, Portugal
(4) London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK
* Contact person:
Elias Allara
Email: elias.allara@med.unipmn.it. Telephone: +39 348 5922753
Department of Translational Medicine, Università del Piemonte Orientale
Via Solaroli 17, 28100 Novara, Italy
Manuscript word court: 2749
Abstract word court: 228
Last update: 25 March 2015
Page 1 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Note: This article is based on a Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews (CDSR) 2013, Issue 6, DOI: .1002/14651858.CD009287.pub2 (see
www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as
new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the CDSR should be consulted for
the most recent version of the review.
Page 2 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Abstract
Objective To determine whether there is evidence that mass-media campaigns can be
effective in reducing illicit drug consumption and the intent to consume.
Design Systematic review of randomized and non-randomized studies.
Methods We searched 4 electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, ProQuest Dissertations &
Theses A&I, and CENTRAL) and further explored 7 additional resources to obtain both
published and unpublished materials. We appraised the quality of included studies using
standardized tools. We carried out meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and a
pooled analysis of interrupted time-series and controlled before-and-after studies.
Results We identified 19 studies comprising 184,811 participants. Pooled analyses and
narrative synthesis provided mixed evidence of effectiveness. Eight interventions evaluated
with randomized controlled trials leaned toward no evidence of an effect, both on drug use
(standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.15 to 0.12) and
the intention to use drugs (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.04). Four campaigns provided some
evidence of beneficial effects in preventing drug use and two interventions provided evidence
of iatrogenic effects.
Conclusions Studies were considerably heterogeneous in type of mass-media intervention,
outcome measures, underlying theory, comparison groups, and design. Such factors can
contribute to explaining the observed variability in results. Due to the risk of adverse effects,
caution is needed in disseminating mass-media campaigns tackling drug use. Large studies
conducted with appropriate methodology are warranted to consolidate the evidence base.
Page 3 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Strengths and limitations of this study
• This systematic review is based on an expanded evidence base of both published and
unpublished findings and aims to determine whether mass-media campaigns can be
effective in preventing the use of or intention to use illicit drugs.
• Pooled analyses of eight mass-media interventions provide no evidence of an effect on
drug use or intention to use illicit drugs. Four interventions provide evidence of
beneficial effects. Two interventions provide evidence of iatrogenic effects.
• Due to the paucity and inconsistency of available evidence we cannot draw general
conclusions as to whether mass-media interventions are effective in preventing the
use of or intention to use illicit drugs.
• This review provides an insight into research gaps around the impact of mass-media
drug prevention interventions and can serve to highlight that new campaigns should
be implemented in the framework of rigorous evaluation studies, in order to avoid
dissemination of interventions that are ineffective or have unintended effects.
Page 4 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Introduction
Mass-media campaigns are a powerful means for disseminating health promotion messages.
A wide and diverse audience can be reached through television commercials, the Internet,
mobile phones, newspapers, and roadside advertising hoardings. In the field of drug addiction
and dependence, adverts may contribute to shaping patterns of drug use and the intention to
use drugs, as well as modifying mediators such as awareness, knowledge, and attitudes about
drugs.
However, ethical and economic considerations are often raised. Mass-media campaigns—
unlike other health interventions—are imposed on populations that have not consented to
their implementation.[1] This is a considerable ethical issue in modern, person-centred public
health, where taking decisions shared with the public is essential for promoting behaviour
change. Secondly, mass-media campaigns can be very expensive, especially when
implemented at national or state level. Large-scale purchasing of public service
announcement time during popular shows and broad dissemination via printed media is often
accessible only to governmental institutions. For example, the first and second versions of the
U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy’s National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign cost
2.7 billion dollars over more than 10 years.[2] Although such campaigns underwent careful
evaluation, most mass-media interventions are not developed in compliance with the classical
circle of public health, which consists in designing interventions based on evidence and in
evaluating their impact.
Page 5 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
A systematic review of the studies assessing media campaigns aiming to prevent use of illicit
drugs can inform future strategies and help design effective campaigns. The objective of this
review is to assess the effectiveness of mass-media campaigns in preventing or reducing drug
use or the intention to use illicit drugs among young people.
Methods
We conducted this systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)[3] statement and with the procedures
specified in a previously published protocol.[4] As described in detail previously,[5] we
systematically searched 4 electronic databases: MEDLINE (1966 to 29 January 29 2013),
EMBASE (1974 to 30 January 2013), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I (1861 to 3 February
2013), and CENTRAL (2013, Issue 1). Search strategies are available as supplementary files
(Appendix 1). We further explored 7 additional resources to obtain both published and
unpublished materials: four websites of registered studies (i.e., http://www.controlled-
trials.com, http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/, http://clinicaltrials.gov/,
https://eudract.emea.europa.eu/), references embedded in book chapters, references
included in the annual national reports written by EMCDDA national focal points, and any
publications recommended by prominent researchers in the field. We did not set any
constraints, such as language or time, to our search.
Page 6 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Selection Criteria
As described in detail previously,[5] we considered studies involving participants under the
age of 26 and evaluating mass-media campaigns explicitly aimed at influencing the use or
intention to use illicit drugs.[6] The following were deemed acceptable comparison groups: (i)
no intervention; (ii) community-based or school-based drug prevention programmes; (iii)
lower exposure to intervention; (iv) time before exposure to intervention. We included
randomized controlled trial (RCT), cohort studies, interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, and
controlled before and after (CBA) studies providing evidence on drug use or intention not to
use, to reduce use or to stop use of illicit drugs.
Two authors independently inspected search hits by reading titles and abstracts and assessed
studies for inclusion. Any disagreement was solved by consensus. Multiple publications
pertaining to the same study were collated as one single study.
Quality Appraisal
Four authors independently performed quality assessments, and any disagreement was
solved by consensus. We contacted study authors whenever information was missing or
unclear.
We used standardized assessment tools for each study design—details are available as
supplementary materials (Appendix 2). For RCTs, we used the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of
Bias assessment tool.[7] For cohort studies, we followed the Scottish Intercollegiate
Page 7 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Guidelines Network (SIGN) Quality Criteria.[8] For ITS and CBA studies, we used the tool
recommended by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group.[9]
Statistical Analysis
As for RCTs, we performed a random effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled effect of
mass-media interventions on drug use whilst accounting for between study heterogeneity, as
described in detail previously.[5] We carried out a fixed effects meta-analysis to estimate the
pooled intervention effect on intention to use drugs. We tested between study heterogeneity
using the chi-squared test and the I2 statistic. A p-value lower than 0.10 in the chi-square test
and an I2 statistic higher than 50% suggested evidence of heterogeneity. Since most studies
assessed their outcome variables with different scales, we used standardized mean difference
(SMD) as the summary measure of choice. SMDs were used for both drug use and intention to
use drugs and were calculated by dividing the difference in mean outcome between groups
by the standard deviation of outcome between participants.[7] SMDs and their standard
errors were then pooled in a meta-analysis performed with RevMan.[10] For two clustered
RCTs,[11,12] we inflated standard errors to account for within-cluster correlations.[7]
We pooled the effect estimates of the Meth Project studies using mixed effects logistic
regression.[13–17] An ITS design was applied for estimating the differences in prevalence of
methamphetamine use before and after the Meth Project intervention, adjusting for any
underlying temporal trend. We fitted the following model: logit(useij) = β0 + u0j + β1timei +
β2agei + β3intervi + β4age×intervi, in which use was prevalence of methamphetamine use,
time was a continuous variable, age and intervention were two-level categorical variables, u0j
Page 8 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
was a random intercept we allowed log odds of methamphetamine use to vary randomly by
each j-th state.[18] The relatively few data points did not allow exploring more complex
models, e.g. the temporal trend could not be assumed to vary randomly across states.
Results
Out of 18,343 titles and abstracts, we selected 24 papers corresponding to 19 individual
studies (Figure 1).
Study Characteristics
Overall, 184,811 subjects were included, with most studies comprising participants who were
aged between 10 and 19 years old (Table 1). Although most studies included both boys and
girls, two studies focused on girls.[19,20] One study considered Asian-Americans as the only
ethnic group eligible for inclusion,[19] whilst the other studies did not focus on any specific
ethnic groups. Seventeen studies were conducted in the U.S., one in the U.S. and Canada,[20]
and one in Australia.[12]
Eleven studies (58%) evaluated multi-component interventions, 3 regarding radio/ television
and printed advertising,[11,21,22] and 8 regarding radio and television commercials, printed
advertisements, and Internet advertising.[2,13–17,23,24] Eight studies evaluated standalone
interventions, 4 consisting in radio and television commercials,[25–28] and 4 consisting in
Internet-based interventions.[12,19,20,29] The included studies in this review were grounded
in a wide range of underlying theories (Table 1).
Page 9 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Comparison groups varied considerably across studies. For thirteen studies (68%), the
comparison group consisted in no exposure to any intervention. Four studies compared high
exposure vs. low exposure to the same mass media intervention.[2,22–24] For one study, the
comparison group consisted in the standard drug education curriculum.[12] One study had
four study arms consisting either in another intervention or no intervention.[27]
Eight studies were conducted in an experimental setting by explicitly inviting participants and
these studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs).[11,12,19,20,26–29] Ten studies were
conducted in a field setting without explicitly inviting participants, as would usually happen
with most mass-media campaigns. Of them, 2 were cohort studies,[23,24] 6 were
ITS,[2,13,15–17,25] and 2 were CBA studies.[14,21] One study had a double design as it was
conducted in an experimental setting with a RCT design, and in a field setting with a cohort
design.[22] When specified, follow-up varied from 6 months [20,29] to 4.7 years.[23]
Study Quality
On the whole, the quality of the RCTs is acceptable (Table 2). As described in detail
previously,[5] the strongest domain appears to be the risk of attrition bias and the weakest
domain the risk of selection bias (unclear description of randomization procedure). In one
paper findings of secondary outcomes were reported only as a predictor of the primary
outcome, and the paper concerned was deemed at high risk for reporting bias.[20]
Page 10 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
All cohort studies focused on a clear and appropriate question. Sub-group comparisons
between participants and drop-outs were carried out only in one study.[24] The same study,
however, failed to control for potential confounders.
The proportion of subjects with no missing data was reported only in one controlled CBA
study.[21] Potential confounders were accounted for only in one ITS study [2] and in one CBA
study.[21] A formal test of trend was not performed in the five Meth Project studies.[13–17]
One ITS study [2] and the two CBA studies [14,21] had three or less data points, which are
generally considered insufficient for drawing reliable conclusions with regard to intervention
effectiveness.
Effects of Mass-media Campaigns
Use of Illicit Drugs
Experimental studies. Pooled analyses of five RCTs [11,12,19,20,29] comprising n=5,470
subjects showed no evidence (p=0.79) of an effect of mass-media campaigns in modifying use
of illicit drugs (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.15
to 0.12) (Figure 2 and Table 3). There was some evidence (p=0.020) of heterogeneity between
studies.
The RCT part of a mixed RCT-cohort study (n=3,236) found evidence of effectiveness
(p=0.026) for a media-community intervention (odds ratio [OR] 0.60; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.94)
(Table 3).[22]
Field studies. Two studies found that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)
National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign (first version) increased use of illicit drugs among
Page 11 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
adolescents (Table 3). One study (n=3,529) reported a significant increase in past year-use of
marijuana (OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.65).[23] The other study (n=2,515) found some evidence
(‘p<0.05’) of a iatrogenic effect among those aged 15 to 18 (mean change = 0.144), whilst
there was no evidence (‘p>0.05’) of an effect among those aged 13 to 14 (mean change = -
0.022).[24]
The revamped version of the same ONDCP campaign, Above the Influence, was found
effective in a mixed RCT-cohort study (n=3,236), whose cohort part found strong evidence
(p<0.001) of effectiveness (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.35).[22] On a similar note were the
findings of an ITS study (n=130,245) which evaluated Above the Influence and found evidence
of reductions in marijuana use in the past month (OR 0.67; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.87) among
eighth-grade girls.[2]
The pooled findings of the five Meth Project studies (n=26,273) suggested no evidence of a
change in past-month use of methamphetamine among subjects aged 12 to 17 (OR 1.16; 95%
CI 0.83 to 1.61), nor among those aged 18 to 24 (OR 1.63; 95% CI 0.70 to 3.79) (Figure 3(a)
and Table 3). There was, however, evidence (p=0.001) of a reduction in past-year use of
methamphetamine among those aged 12 to 17 (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.81), whilst there
was no evidence of a similar effect among those aged 18 to 24 (OR 0.70; 95 % CI 0.34 to 1.45)
(Figure 3(b) and Table 3).
One ITS (n=6,371) showed evidence of effectiveness for past 30-day use of marijuana among
high sensation seekers (p=0.001 for the Fayette sample, p=0.001 for the first campaign in the
Knox sample, p=0.002 for the second campaign in the Knox sample).[25]
One CBA study found an increase in use of LSD (‘p<0.001’) (Table 3) whilst no evidence
(‘p>0.05’) of differences were found for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamine, and heroin.[21]
Page 12 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Intention to Use Drugs
Experimental studies. In one meta-analysis of 4 randomized controlled studies involving 1,270
subjects, there was no evidence of an effect (p=0.21) of media campaigns in changing
intention to use drugs (SMD -0.07; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.04) (Figure 2 and Table 3).[19,26–28]
There was no evidence (p=0.840) of heterogeneity across studies.
Field studies. One study (n=2,915) found some evidence (p=0.053) of a reduction in intentions
to use marijuana (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.00) (Table 3) for the first version of the ONDCP’s
media campaign.[23]
Discussion
Mass-media campaigns are commonly used throughout the world to tackle a broad array of
preventable risk factors or injuries. Such campaigns are seldom evaluated, thus making it
difficult to inform policymakers regarding their effectiveness and sustainability. In this
panorama of overall uncertainty, mass-media campaigns tackling tobacco and traffic
accidents are noteworthy exceptions as they have been evaluated more frequently and have
shown some evidence for benefit.[30] In our attempt to summarize evidence on the
effectiveness of mass-media campaigns targeting illicit drugs, we included 19 studies
evaluating a number of heterogeneous interventions. We grouped interventions according to
whether they were evaluated with studies conducted in experimental settings in which
participants were aware of being exposed to media interventions; or were assessed with
Page 13 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
studies carried out in a field environment which are more likely to show the real-life effects of
large national media campaigns—but are also more prone to risk of bias.
Findings appear to vary considerably according to the type of intervention and study design.
Pooled analyses of 8 interventions evaluated in an experimental setting provided no evidence
of beneficial effects for use or intention to use illicit drugs, an indicator of possible future
behaviour.[31,32] Four interventions evaluated with 8 field studies revealed some evidence of
beneficial effects: (i) the revamped campaign by the Office of National Drug Control Policy
(ONDCP) called Above the Influence, which was found effective in one study and effective
among eighth-grade girls in another study; (ii) the Be Under Your Own Influence media-
community intervention; (iii) the Meth Project campaign, which was found effective on past-
year methamphetamine use, although only among adolescents aged 12 to 17 years old; and
(iv) the U.S. televised anti-marijuana campaigns broadcasted in Fayette County (Lexington),
Kentucky, and in Knox County (Knoxville), Tennessee, which were found to be effective on
high-sensation seekers. Two mass media campaigns showed clear iatrogenic effects; most
notably, the first version of the ONDCP’s media campaign My Anti Drug, which was evaluated
by 2 studies and was found to increase use of marijuana. An adverse effect was also found
for a media-community intervention evaluated by a CBA study which provided evidence of
increased frequency of LSD use.
No characteristic clearly emerged as core feature of successful or unsuccessful campaigns,
neither regarding their explicit or implicit theoretical background nor their communication
strategies. However, it is worth noting that two out of the four interventions providing
Page 14 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
evidence of effectiveness, the ONDCP’s Above the Influence national campaign and the Be
Under Your Own Influence media-community intervention, promoted non-use of drugs as a
way to support the goals of autonomy and achievement of competence, which have been
both conceptualized as innate psychological needs that persist over the lifespan.[22] Among
the interventions which provided evidence of harmful effects, the first version of the ONDCP’s
media campaign My Anti Drug was based on a social marketing approach which emphasized
resistance skills, self-efficacy, normative education, and negative consequences of drug
use.[33] These mediators are suspected to have increased the perception of prevalence of
drug use in the target population.[34]
An important reason of the weak evidence obtained by this review is the large variation in
mass-media intervention type and study design. Similar interventions were often evaluated
with different study designs whilst different interventions were sometimes evaluated with the
same study design. Pooled analyses could thus be undertaken only for a few similar
interventions evaluated with the same study design, and such small sets of pooled studies did
not allow carrying out sensitivity analyses. We did not set any time or language constraints to
our search, accepted all types of controlled study designs, and obtained unpublished data by
establishing direct contact with the authors of the original papers. Unfortunately, due to the
paucity and inconsistency of available evidence we cannot draw general conclusions as to
whether media campaigns are effective in preventing the use or the intention to use illicit
drugs. This observation is in line with the findings of similar reviews that used more restrictive
inclusion criteria.[30,35]
Page 15 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
The evidence base accrued so far on media campaigns targeting illicit drugs allows us to make
at least two remarks. First, such campaigns can be evaluated—a fact that is often questioned
in several parts of the world—and properly conducted evaluation studies can provide benefits
to both research and practice. Second, in the worst-case scenario, media campaigns can be
not only ineffective, but even harmful. Contrary to common belief, antidrug media
campaigns may be damaging and their dissemination is ethically unacceptable without a prior
assessment of their effects.[36,37] New campaigns should be implemented in the framework
of rigorous evaluation studies, ideally in field settings with cohort or ITS study designs. A
better understanding of which media interventions work best is likely to result in a more
effective prevention of drug use and increased efficiency in the management of public
resources.
Page 16 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the Cochrane Drug and Alcohol Group for their support in publishing the
Cochrane review from which this paper has been extracted.[5] We thank Gregor Burkhart and
V. Anna Gyamathy for their input to the drafting of the protocol for this review, and Marie-
Christine Ashby and Fozia Hamid for carefully proofreading the manuscript. We are grateful to
Ling Fang, John Horan, Nicola Newton, Philip Palmgreen, Joan Polansky, Michael Slater,
Jennifer Stagnaro, Violeta Taneva, and Marco Yzer for their useful advice and for providing us
with their studies' unpublished data whenever possible.
Contributorship statement
EA structured and drafted this paper. MF and FF conceived the systematic review from which
this paper originates and overviewed the inclusion of studies and their methodological
assessment. MF and EA selected the studies for inclusion. EA and AB extracted the data from
the studies and contributed to writing the review. EA contacted study authors. EA and AB did
the meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. AG and EA conducted the meta-analysis of
interrupted time-series studies.
All authors regularly discussed each step of review process and equally participated in each
decision regarding the studies and the analysis. All authors revised the paper. All authors read
and approved the final version of this manuscript.
Page 17 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Competing interests
We declare no competing interests.
Funding
No specific funding was available for this review and review protocol. All authors received
funding directly from their respective institutions, which allowed them to conduct this study
during office hours and to use working resources including IT equipment and journal access.
Data sharing
Data and statistical code used for pooled analyses are available and can be requested from
the corresponding author (Elias Allara, elias.allara@med.unipmn.it).
Page 18 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
References
1 Sumnall HR, Bellis MA. Can health campaigns make people ill? The iatrogenic potential
of population-based cannabis prevention. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007;61:930–
1. doi:10.1136/jech.2007.060277
2 Carpenter CS, Pechmann C. Exposure to the Above the Influence antidrug
advertisements and adolescent marijuana use in the United States, 2006-2008. Am J
Public Health 2011;101:948–54. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2010.300040
3 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews
and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535.
doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535
4 Ferri M, Burkhart G, Allara E, et al. Media campaigns for the prevention of illicit drug
use in young people. Cochrane database Syst Rev Published Online First: 2011.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009287
5 Ferri M, Allara E, Bo A, et al. Media campaigns for the prevention of illicit drug use in
young people. Cochrane database Syst Rev 2013;6:CD009287.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009287.pub2
6 Brinn MP, Carson K V, Esterman AJ, et al. Mass media interventions for preventing
smoking in young people. Cochrane database Syst Rev 2010;:CD001006.
doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001006.pub2
7 Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
2011.www.cochrane-handbook.org
8 Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Critical Appraisal: Notes And Checklists.
2010.http://www.sign.ac.uk/methodology/checklists.html (accessed 12 Sep2010).
9 Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Draft EPOC Methods
Paper Including Interrupted Time Series (ITS) Designs in a EPOC Review. 1998.
10 Review Manager (RevMan). 2014.
11 Slater MD, Kelly KJ, Edwards RW, et al. Combining in-school and community-based
media efforts: reducing marijuana and alcohol uptake among younger adolescents.
Health Educ Res 2006;21:157–67. doi:10.1093/her/cyh056
12 Newton NC, Teesson M, Vogl LE, et al. Internet-based prevention for alcohol and
cannabis use: final results of the Climate Schools course. Addiction 2010;105:749–59.
doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02853.x
Page 19 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
13 The Meth Project. Colorado Meth: Use & Attitudes Survey 2011. 2011.
14 The Meth Project. Georgia Meth: Use & Attitudes Survey 2011. 2011.
15 The Meth Project. Idaho Meth: Use & Attitudes Survey 2010. 2010.
16 The Meth Project. Hawaii Meth: Use & Attitudes Survey 2011. 2011.
17 The Meth Project. Wyoming Meth: Use & Attitudes Survey 2011. 2011.
18 Gilmour S, Degenhardt L, Hall W, et al. Using intervention time series analyses to assess
the effects of imperfectly identifiable natural events: a general method and example.
BMC Med Res Methodol 2006;6:16. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-16
19 Fang L, Schinke SP, Cole KCA. Preventing substance use among early Asian-American
adolescent girls: initial evaluation of a web-based, mother-daughter program. J Adolesc
Health 2010;47:529–32. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2010.03.011
20 Schwinn TM, Schinke SP, Di Noia J. Preventing drug abuse among adolescent girls:
outcome data from an internet-based intervention. Prev Sci 2010;11:24–32.
doi:10.1007/s11121-009-0146-9
21 Miller WR, Toscova RT, Miller JH, et al. A theory-based motivational approach for
reducing alcohol/drug problems in college. Health Educ Behav 2000;27:744–59.
22 Slater MD, Kelly KJ, Lawrence FR, et al. Assessing media campaigns linking marijuana
non-use with autonomy and aspirations: ‘Be Under Your Own Influence’ and ONDCP’s
‘Above the Influence’. Prev Sci 2011;12:12–22. doi:10.1007/s11121-010-0194-1
23 Hornik R. Personal Influence and the Effects of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 2006;608:282–300.
doi:10.1177/0002716206291972
24 Scheier LM, Grenard JL. Influence of a nationwide social marketing campaign on
adolescent drug use. J Health Commun 2010;15:240–71.
doi:10.1080/10810731003686580
25 Palmgreen P, Donohew L, Lorch EP, et al. Television campaigns and adolescent
marijuana use: tests of sensation seeking targeting. Am J Public Health 2001;91:292–6.
26 Polansky JM, Buki LP, Horan JJ, et al. The Effectiveness of Substance Abuse Prevention
Videotapes with Mexican American Adolescents. Hisp J Behav Sci 1999;21:186–98.
doi:10.1177/0739986399212005
27 Yzer MC, Cappella JN, Fishbein M, et al. The effectiveness of gateway communications
in anti-marijuana campaigns. J Health Commun 2003;8:129–43.
doi:10.1080/10810730305695
Page 20 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
28 Zhao X, Sayeed S, Cappella J, et al. Targeting norm-related beliefs about marijuana use
in an adolescent population. Health Commun 2006;19:187–96.
doi:10.1207/s15327027hc1903_1
29 Lee CM, Neighbors C, Kilmer JR, et al. A brief, web-based personalized feedback
selective intervention for college student marijuana use: a randomized clinical trial.
Psychol Addict Behav 2010;24:265–73. doi:10.1037/a0018859
30 Wakefield MA, Loken B, Hornik RC. Use of mass media campaigns to change health
behaviour. Lancet 2010;376:1261–71. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60809-4
31 Litchfield R, White K. Young Adults’ Willingness and Intentions to use Amphetamines :
An Application of the Theory of Reasoned Action. E-Journal Appl Psychol 2006;2:45–51.
doi:10.7790/ejap.v2i1.34
32 Olds RS, Thombs DL, Tomasek JR. Relations between normative beliefs and initiation
intentions toward cigarette, alcohol and marijuana. J Adolesc Health 2005;37:75.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.09.020
33 Hornik R, Jacobsohn L, Orwin R, et al. Effects of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign on youths. Am J Public Health 2008;98:2229–36.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.125849
34 Hornik R, Jacobsohn L. The best laid plans: disappointments of the National Youth Anti-
Drug Media Campaign. LDI Issue Brief;14:1–4.
35 Werb D, Mills EJ, Debeck K, et al. The effectiveness of anti-illicit-drug public-service
announcements: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health
2011;65:834–40. doi:10.1136/jech.2010.125195
36 Faggiano F, Giannotta F, Allara E. Strengthening Prevention Science to Ensure
Effectiveness of Intervention in Practice: Setting up an International Agenda. In:
Sloboda Z, Petras H, eds. Defining Prevention Science. Boston, MA: : Springer US 2014.
597–615. doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-7424-2_26
37 Faggiano F, Allara E, Giannotta F, et al. Europe needs a central, transparent, and
evidence-based approval process for behavioural prevention interventions. PLoS Med
2014;11:e1001740. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001740
Page 21 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Table 1. Characteristics of Included Studies
Study Underpinning
theory Design (goal)a
Interventionb Comparisonc Primary outcome
Secondary outcome(s) Analysis sample
Follow-up (total time) [months]
Polansky 1999[26] Decision theory RCT (E) PSA Other –
Intention to use; attitudes; knowledge and
disposition to select socially appropriate
responses
312 n.a. (n.s.)
Miller 2000[21] Self regulation theory
CBA (F) PSA; printed No intervention Use of drugs
(incl. cannabis and cocaine)
Risk perception ; problems related to drug
use 1,024 12 (18)
Palmgreen 2001[25] Influence of sensation-seeking on drug use
ITS (F) PSA No intervention Past-30-day use
of marijuana – 6,371 n.a. (32)
Yzer 2003[27]
Theories of behavioral change: persuasion effects
RCT (E) PSA No
intervention; other
–
Intention to use marijuana; attitude; perceptions about
marijuana
418 n.a. (n.s.)
Slater 2006[11]
Social-ecological framework (norms and expectations influence drug use)
RCT (E) PSA; printed No intervention Lifetime and
past-30-day use of marijuana
– 4,216 24 (42)
Zhao 2006[28] Normative beliefs RCT (E) PSA No intervention – Intention to use; beliefs
towards marijuana; social norms
435 n.a. (n.s.)
Hornik 2006[23] Unclear Cohort
(F) PSA; printed;
internet Lower
exposure
Lifetime, past-year, and past-30-day use of
marijuana
Intention to use; attitudes and self
efficacy; perceptions and social norms
8,117 56 (58)
Scheier 2010[24] Social marketing Cohort
(F) PSA; printed;
internet Lower
exposure
Past-12-month cannabis
intoxications – 2,515 n.a. (48)
Schwinn 2010[20] Social learning theory
RCT (E) Internet No intervention Past-30-day
substance use – 236 6 (n.s.)
Lee 2010[29] Readiness to change
RCT (E) Internet No intervention Past-90-day use
of marijuana Intention to change
marijuana use; consequences
341 6 (n.s.)
Fang 2010[19] Family-oriented RCT (E) Internet No intervention Past-30-day use
of marijuana Intention to use
marijuana 216 6.25 (16)
Newton 2010[12] Social influence approach
RCT (E) Internet Other Use of cannabis Cannabis knowledge;
attitudes; related harms 724 12 (21)
Meth Project studies[13–17]
Perception of risk and perception of social disapproval are correlated with drug consumption
4 ITS and 1 CBA
(F)
PSA; printed; internet
No intervention
Past-30-day use of
methamphetamine
Attitudes on methamphetamine and
other drugs; perceptions; information sources and advertising awareness;
26,405
n.a. (Colorado
26; Georgia
18; Hawaii 25;
Idaho 40; Wyoming
34)
Page 22 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Slater 2011[22]
Autonomy and aspiration perceptions as mediators marijuana use
RCT (E); Cohort
(F) PSA; printed
Lower exposure
Lifetime, past-90-day and past-
30-day use of marijuana
Autonomy and aspiration inconsistent with marijuana use
3,236 24 (42)
Carpenter 2011[2]
Unclear; evaluated many heterogeneous mass-media campaigns
ITS (F) PSA; printed;
internet Lower
exposure
Past-30-day and lifetime use of
marijuana – 130,245 n.a. (36)
n.a. = not applicable. n.s. = not specified. a ITS = interrupted time-series. RCT = randomized controlled trial. CBA = controlled before and after. Cohort = prospective cohort. E = experimental/efficacy setting. F = field/effectiveness setting. b PSA = public service announcement (e.g., television/radio). c Other = other intervention or different combination of same intervention. Lower exposure = lower exposure to same intervention.
Page 23 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Table 2. Risk of Bias of Included Studies
Designa Study Random
sequence generation
Allocation concealment
Blinding of outcome
assessment Attrition
Selective reporting
Comparability of groups
Acceptance among
recruited
Attrition by exposure
status
Strategies alternative to blinding
Discussion of potential
confounders
Statistical accuracy
Overall risk of bias
(cohort)
Sufficient data points
for inference
RC
T
Polansky 1999[26]
Yzer 2003[27]
Slater 2006[11]
Zhao 2006[28]
Schwinn 2010[20]
Lee 2010[29]
Fang 2010[19]
Newton 2010[12]
Coh
ort Slater 2011[22] b,c
Hornik 2006[23] b
Scheier 2010[24] b
ITS
Palmgreen 2001[25] d
Carpenter 2011[2] d
4 Meth Project studies[13,15–17] d
CBA 1 Meth Project study[14] d Miller 2000[21] d
████ = low risk of bias. ████ = unclear risk of bias. ████ = high risk of bias. White = not applicable Study quality was appraised with three different tools depending on study design. Redundant or similar items were collapsed. The 'the intervention was independent of other changes' item of the ITS checklist was considered equivalent to the 'discussion of potential confounder' item for cohort studies, the 'formal test for trend' ITS item was considered equivalent to the 'statistical accuracy' item for cohort studies, and the 'completeness of dataset' ITS item was considered equivalent to the 'attrition' item for RCT and cohort studies. a ITS = interrupted time-series. RCT = randomized controlled trial. CBA = controlled before and after. Cohort = prospective cohort. b All cohort studies had low risk of bias for the following items: 'likelihood of outcome already present at enrolment', 'clarity of outcome', 'reliability of assessment of exposure', 'use of other sources to corroborate outcome measure', and 'multiple measure of exposure'. c Slater 2011 is a mixed RCT-cohort study. d All ITS studies and the CBA study had low risk of bias for the following items: 'intervention unlikely to affect data collection', and 'reliable primary outcome measure(s)'.
Page 24 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 September 2015. Downloaded from
For peer review only
Table 3. Main Findings for Use or Intention to Use Illicit Drugs
Pooling Outcome Designa References Sub-groups No. of
subjects exp vs. ctrlb
Effect measure
Effect size (95% CI) or effect direction (p-
value)c
Heterogeneity p-valued
Poo
led
anal
yses
Use of illicit drugs RCT
Slater 2006[11]; Fang 2010[19]; Newton 2010[12]; Schwinn 2010[20]; Lee 2010[29]
– 2,701 vs.
2,769
SMD, random effects
-0.02 (-0.15 to 0.12) 0.020 *
Intention to use illicit drugs
RCT
Polansky 1999[26]; Yzer 2003[27]; Zhao 2006[28]; Fang 2010[19]
– 771 vs. 499 SMD, fixed
effects -0.07 (-0.19 to 0.04) 0.840
Past-month use of methamphetamine
4 ITS and 1 CBA
Meth Project studies[13–17]
age 12-17 14,865 vs.
7,497
OR, random effects
1.16 (0.83 to 1.61) –
age 18-24 347 vs. 632 OR,
random effects
1.63 (0.70 to 3.79) –
Past-year use of methamphetamine
4 ITS and 1 CBA
Meth Project studies[13–17]
age 12-17 17,105 vs
7,497
OR, random effects
0.59 (0.43 to 0.81) ** –
age 18-24 1,039 vs. 632 OR,
random effects
0.70 (0.34 to 1.45) –
Sin
gle
stud
ies
Lifetime, past-90-day, or past-30-day use of marijuana
RCT (community-
media) Slater 2011[22]
–
n.a. (3,236)
OR, random effects
0.60 (0.38 to 0.94) * –
Cohort (mass-media)
– OR,
random effects
0.26 (0.19 to 0.35) *** –
Past-year use of marijuana
Cohort Hornik 2006[23] – n.a. (3,529)
OR, fixed effects
1.21 (1.19 to 1.65) * –
Intention to use marijuana
– n.a. (2,915) OR, fixed
effects 0.89 (0.79 to 1.00) § –
Past-12-month episodes of cannabis intoxication
Cohort Scheier 2010[24]
age 13-14
n.a. (2,515)
mean difference,
SEM -0.022 –
age 15-18 mean
difference, SEM
0.144 * –
Past-30-day use of marijuana among high sensation seekers
ITS Palmgreen 2001[25]
Fayette n.a. (3,174) test for slope
↓ (p=0.001) –
Knox, first campaign
n.a. (3,197)
test for slope
↓ (p=0.001)
Knox, second campaign
test for slope
↓ (p=0.002) –
Past-30-day use of marijuana (girls, 8th grade)
ITS Carpenter 2011[2] – n.a. (130,245) OR, fixed
effects 0.67 (0.52 to 0.87) ** –
Frequency of use of 10 types of drugs
CBA Miller 2000[21] – 567 vs 431 mean
difference, ANOVA
for LSD: ↑ (p<0.001) for marijuana, cocaine,
amphetamine, and heroin: 'no longer
significant' differences
–
§ < 0.10 * p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 OR = odds ratio SMD = standardized mean difference SEM = structural equation modeling a ITS = interrupted time-series. RCT = randomized controlled trial. CBA = controlled before and after. Cohort = prospective cohort. b n.a. = breakdowns of students exposed to the interventions were not available. Number of analyzed subjects is between brackets. c Whenever the effect size was not reported, ↓ = decreased use or intention to use, and ↑ = increased use or intention to use. d Heterogeneity test for meta-analyses of RCTs.
Page 25 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram
Note: adapted from a previous publication.[5]
Figure 2. Pooling of Randomized Controlled Trials
Note: adapted from a previous publication.[5]
Figure 3. Pooling of the Meth Project Interrupted Time-Series studies: Predicted and Observed Probabilities
Note: adapted from a previous publication.[5]
Page 26 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Appendix 1. Search Strategy
Appendix 2. Quality Appraisal
Appendix 3. PRISMA Checklist
Page 27 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Figure 1. PRISMA Flow Diagram
121x116mm (300 x 300 DPI)
Page 28 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Figure 2. Pooling of Randomized Controlled Trials 423x245mm (300 x 300 DPI)
Page 29 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Figure 3. Pooling of the Meth Project Interrupted Time-Series studies: Predicted and Observed Probabilities 419x550mm (300 x 300 DPI)
Page 30 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Appendix 1. Search Strategy
Note: search strategies have already been described in detail previously [5].
(a) PubMed (MEDLINE) Search Strategy
Search Query Items found
#16 Search (((#3) AND #4) AND #11) AND #15 5877
#15 Search ((#12) OR #13) OR #14 3,041,802
#14 Search adolescen*[tiab] OR preadolescen*[tiab] OR child*[tiab] OR teen*[tiab] OR youth*[tiab] OR young[tiab] OR kid*[tiab] OR juvenile*[tiab] OR minors[tiab] OR boy*[tiab] OR girl*[tiab]
1,662,519
#13 Search "Child"[Mesh] 1,457,004
#12 Search "Adolescent"[Mesh] 1,498,465
#11 Search ((((#5) OR #7) OR #8) OR #9) OR #10 797,788
#10
Search media[tiab] OR Communication*[tiab] OR audiovisual[tw] OR telecommunication*[tw] OR Educat*[tiab] OR radio[tw] OR television[tw] OR TV[tiab] OR internet[tw] OR campaign*[tw] OR advert*[tw] OR twitter[tw] OR facebook[tw] OR "instant messaging"[tw]
751,996
#9 Search "Telecommunications"[Mesh] 54,815
#8 Search Videotape Recording[Mesh] 9970
#7 Search "Internet"[Mesh] 43,359
#5 Search "Mass Media"[Mesh] 37,325
#4
Search "heroin"[Mesh] OR heroin[tiab] OR "Street Drugs"[Mesh] OR "Designer Drugs"[Mesh] OR "Crack Cocaine"[Mesh] OR "Lysergic Acid Diethylamide"[Mesh] OR drug*[tiab] OR polydrug[tiab] OR substance[tiab] OR hallucinogen*[tw] OR cocaine[tw] OR amphetamine*[tw] OR "lysergic acid diethylamide"[tw] OR LSD [tiab] OR ketamine[tw] OR cannabis[tw] OR marihuana[tw] OR marijuana[tiab] OR hashish[tw] OR steroid*[tw] OR morphine[tiab] OR ecstasy[tw] OR MDMA[tw] OR benzodiazepine[tw]
1,136,251
#3 Search (#1) OR #2 1,812,638
#2 Search abus*[tiab] OR consumption[tiab] OR misus*[tiab] OR use*[tiab] OR addict*[tiab] OR disorder*[tiab]
1,570,344
#1 Search "Substance-Related disorders"[Mesh] 344,574
(b) EMBASE Search Strategy
ID Query
#1 'substance abuse'/exp
#2 'drug abuse'/exp
#3 abus*:ab,ti OR consumption:ab,ti OR misus*:ab,ti OR use*:ab,ti OR addict*:ab,ti OR disorder*:ab,ti
#4 #1 OR #2 OR #3
#5
heroin:ab,ti OR drug*:ab,ti OR polydrug:ab,ti OR substance:ab,ti OR hallucinogen*:ab,ti OR cocaine:ab,ti OR amphetamine*:ab,ti OR 'lysergic acid diethylamide':ab,ti OR lsd:ab,ti OR ketamine:ab,ti OR cannabis:ab,ti OR marihuana:ab,ti OR marijuana:ab,ti OR hashish:ab,ti OR steroid*:ab,ti OR morphine:ab,ti OR ecstasy:ab,ti OR mdma:ab,ti OR benzodiazepine:ab,ti
#6 'diamorphine'/exp
#7 'designer drug'/exp
#8 'street drug'/exp
#9 'cocaine'/exp
Page 31 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
#10 'cannabis smoking'/exp
#11 #5 OR #6 OR #7 OR #8 OR #9 OR #10
#12 'mass medium'/exp
#13 'internet'/exp
#14 'videorecording'/exp
#15 'telecommunication'/exp
#16 media:ab,ti OR communication*:ab,ti OR audiovisual:ab,ti OR telecommunication*:ab,ti OR educat*:ab,ti OR radio:ab,ti OR television:ab,ti OR tv:ab,ti OR internet:ab,ti OR campaign*:ab,ti OR advert*:ab,ti OR twitter:ab,ti OR facebook:ab,ti
#17 #12 OR #13 OR #14 OR #15 OR #16
#18 'adolescent'/exp
#19 'child'/exp
#20 adolescen*:ab,ti OR preadolescen*:ab,ti OR child*:ab,ti OR teen*:ab,ti OR youth*:ab,ti OR young:ab,ti OR kid*:ab,ti OR juvenile*:ab,ti OR minors:ab,ti OR boy*:ab,ti OR girl*:ab,ti
#21 #18 OR #19 OR #20
#22 #4 AND #11 AND #17 AND #21 AND [embase]/lim
(c) ProQuest Search Strategy
(media campaigns OR mass media) AND illicit drug* AND preventi*.
(d) CENTRAL Search Strategy
ID Search Hits
#1 MeSH descriptor: [Substance-Related Disorders] explode all trees 10,355
#2 ((stimulant* or polydrug* or drug* or substance) near/3 (abuse* or abusing or consumption or addict* or disorder* or intoxicat* or misus* or use*)):ti,ab
14,750
#3 (abuse* or abusing or consumption or addict* or disorder* or intoxicat* or misus* or use*):ti,ab 198,966
#4 MeSH descriptor: [Narcotics] explode all trees 681
#5 heroin:ti,ab 762
#6 MeSH descriptor: [Street Drugs] explode all trees 196
#7 MeSH descriptor: [Amphetamine] explode all trees 632
#8 (amphetamine* or dextroamphetamine* or methamphetamine or Methylamphetamine*):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)
1442
#9 (ecstasy or MDMA or hallucinogen*):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched) 234
#10 MeSH descriptor: [Cocaine] explode all trees 576
#11 (crack or cocaine):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched) 1953
#12 MeSH descriptor: [Cannabis] explode all trees 245
#13 (cannabis or marijuana or marihuana or Hashish):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)
1158
#14 (Lysergic next Acid):ti,ab,kw 76
#15 LSD:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched) 131
#16 (benzodiazepine* or barbiturate* or ketamine or solvent or inhalant):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)
6370
#17 (benzodiazepine* or barbiturate* or ketamine or solvent or inhalant):ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)
6370
#18 #4 or #5 or #6 or #7 or #8 or #9 or #10 or #11 or #12 or #13 or #14 or #15 or #16 or #17 11,919
#19 #3 and #18 6547
#20 #1 or #2 or #19 26,077
Page 32 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
#21 MeSH descriptor: [Mass Media] explode all trees 1337
#22 MeSH descriptor: [Internet] explode all trees 1248
#23 MeSH descriptor: [Videotape Recording] explode all trees 790
#24 "Tv":ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched) 386
#25 (media or communication* or audiovisual or telecommunication* or radio or television or internet or campaign* or advert* or twitter or facebook) (Word variations have been searched)
27,766
#26 #21 or #22 or #23 or #24 or #25 28,828
#27 MeSH descriptor: [Adolescent] explode all trees 68,885
#28 adolescen* or preadolescen* or child* or teen* or youth* or young or kid* or juvenile* or minors or boy* or girl*:ti,ab,kw (Word variations have been searched)
157,753
#29 #27 or #28 157,753
#30 #20 and #26 and #29 566
Page 33 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
Appendix 2. Details on Quality Appraisal
(a) Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials
The recommended approach for assessing risk of bias in studies included in Cochrane Reviews is a two-part
tool, addressing (a) sequence generation and allocation concealment, (b) blinding of participants and
providers, (c) blinding of outcome assessor, (d) incomplete outcome data, (e) selective outcome reporting,
and (f) other source of bias. Blinding of participants is not always applicable for mass media campaigns, and
we therefore considered blinding of personnel and outcome assessors. A study was deemed to have low
risk of bias for blinding if the data were obtained with a questionnaire administered anonymously or by
computer.
(b) Assessment of Cohort Studies
This tool comprises several questions intended to serve as guidance for the study assessors, regarding (a)
blinding of outcome assessment; (b) clarity of outcome; (c) likelihood of outcome already present at
enrolment; (d) use of other sources to corroborate outcome measure; (e) reliability of assessment of
exposure; (f) multiple measure of exposure; (g) attrition; (h) comparability of groups; (i) acceptance among
recruited; (j) attrition by exposure status; (k) strategies alternative to blinding; (l) discussion of potential
confounders; (m) statistical accuracy, and (n) overall risk of bias.
(c) Assessment of interrupted time series (ITS) and before and after (CBA)
studies
This tool requires assessing whether there is presence of (a) an intervention independent of other changes;
(b) sufficient data points to enable reliable statistical inference; (c) formal tests for trend; (d) an
intervention unlikely to affect data collection; (e) blinded assessment of primary outcome(s); (f)
completeness of dataset; (g) reliable primary outcome measures.
Page 34 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. P
rotected by copyright.http://bm
jopen.bmj.com
/B
MJ O
pen: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 S
eptember 2015. D
ownloaded from
For peer review only
PRISMA 2009 ChecklistPRISMA 2009 ChecklistPRISMA 2009 ChecklistPRISMA 2009 Checklist
Section/topic # Checklist item Reported on page #
TITLE
Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. 1
ABSTRACT
Structured summary 2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
3
INTRODUCTION
Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. 5,6
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
6
METHODS
Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
6
Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered,
language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
7
Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
6
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Appendix 1
Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
7
Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
7, 8, Appendix 2
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
7, 8, Appendix 2, protocol
Risk of bias in individual studies
12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
7, 8, Appendix 2
Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). 8
Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency
(e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
8, 9
Page 35 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 September 2015. Downloaded from
For peer review only
PRISMA 2009 ChecklistPRISMA 2009 ChecklistPRISMA 2009 ChecklistPRISMA 2009 Checklist
Page 1 of 2
Section/topic # Checklist item Reported on page #
Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
N/A
Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
8, 9
RESULTS
Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
9, Figure 1
Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
9, 10, Table 1
Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12). 10,11,Table 2
Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
Table 3, Figure 2, Figure 3
Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. 11-13,Table 3
Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). 10, Table 2
Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). 12, Figure 3, Table 3
DISCUSSION
Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
13, 14
Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
15
Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. 16
FUNDING
Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
N/A
From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
For more information, visit: www.prisma-statement.org.
Page 2 of 2
Page 36 of 36
For peer review only - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/site/about/guidelines.xhtml
BMJ Open
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960
on May 14, 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007449 on 3 September 2015. Downloaded from
top related