Annotated Bibliography of Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse Prevention
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 4
Barton, C., Alexander, J.F., Waldron, H., Turner, C.W., &Warburton, J. (1985). Generalizing treatment effects of functionalfamily therapy: Three replications. The American Journal ofFamily Therapy, 13(3), 16–26.
This is a journal that clearly shows families on the ways on how tohelp their affected stop drug abuse. The study includes programs fortreating the affected individuals. It comprises of randomresponsibility, true and real analogy of programs, well trainedcounselors and analysts as well as planned times to follow-up theindividuals. The present report explains three copies that showFunctional Family Therapy extending to other people. The research hasmade good use the few officially experienced counselors and has beencarried out in current treatment framework. The research providesvital support to the customers of functional family therapy as wellas their counselor’s numbers.
Botvin, G.J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Botvin, E.M., & Diaz, T.(1995). Long-term follow-up results of a randomized drug
abuse prevention trial in a white middle-class population.JAMA 273(14), 1106–1112.
This is an excellent and thorough study covered to assess thelong-term productiveness and effectiveness of a program based onschools. This is meant to analyze the program’s effectiveness ofprevention of abuse of drugs and substances in learning institutions.This study realized a great minimal usage of drugs for the couple ofgroups of learners who got the prevention program in comparison tocontrols. Drug abusers are seen to be less than substance users inthis random study. In percentage, those students that used substancessuch as tobacco, alcohol and others, were sixty six percent lesscompared to drug abusers of forty four percent fewer. In conclusion,drug abuse prevention done in schools can lead to long lastinganswers to minimal usage of substances such as alcohol and tobacco incase the study teaches social resistance skills and general lifeskills as well as put the teachings into action and have not lessthan 2 years support groups.
Brown, J.H., DEmidi-Caston, M., & Pollard, J. (1997). Studentsand substances: Social power in drug education.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(1), 65–82
This is a well known program that assesses a school-based drugeducation and usage of substance. It is a program known as CaliforniaDrug, Alcohol and Tobacco Education. (DATE). This research designedto measure the usage of substances and drug abuse in schools. Theresearchers use a number of ways to access drug, alcohol and tobaccoeducation, like DARE (Drug Abuse resistance Education) as well as RedRibbon Weeks. This study explores various groups of teachers and anumber of students. It shows that teachers try to block students fromusing substances by giving them what is called `no substance use`done via punishing students. They also give presents to students whoadhere to the rule of `no substance use` and try to boost students`self-worth by teaching ways on how to refuse abusing substances anddrugs. This study revealed that a huge number of students did notadhere to this so called rule. Students opted to use other waysinstead for abusing drugs and substances. This study is important tomy research since it talks about programs of reducing drug andsubstance uses in school. DATE programs is important so as ways andmeans in which students can be approached rather imposing rules onthem should be discussed.
Barton, C., Alexander, J.F., Waldron, H., Turner, C.W., &Warburton, J. (1985). Generalizing treatment effects of functionalfamily therapy: Three replications. The American Journal of FamilyTherapy, 13(3), 16–26.
Botvin, G.J., Baker, E., Dusenbury, L., Botvin, E.M., & Diaz, T.(1995). Long­term follow­up results of a randomized drugabuse prevention trial in a white middle­class population. JAMA273(14), 1106–1112.
Brown, J.H., DEmidio­Caston, M., & Pollard, J. (1997).Students and substances: Social power in drug education. EducationalEvaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(1), 65–82.