Effectiveness of Youth Risk Prevention Programs When Virtually Adapted.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 forced many youth risk prevention programs to be adapted to virtual formats. It remains unclear whether virtual programming is as effective as in-person programming. This study examined program logistics, differences in reach of at-risk youth and risk reduction in a youth substance use prevention program before and after being adapted to a virtual platform due to COVID-19. METHODS: Rural high school students in a substance use prevention program completed baseline and follow-up surveys. Data were included from two program cohorts, one in 2020 (In-person; N = 331) and the second in 2021 (virtual; N = 426). Survey data were analyzed to compare differences between cohorts in ability to reach at-risk youth and effects on risk reduction. Data on program logistics were drawn from open-ended facilitator questionnaires and site observation reports. These data were analyzed to understand benefits and challenges with virtual program implementation. RESULTS: In-person participants were older, in a higher grade, and reported higher rates of substance abuse, reported higher rates of substance use, sexual behaviors, and risky sex. Virtual program participants reported higher rates of unprotected sex and future intentions of unprotected sex. Neither program showed significant reduction in risk intermediary factors. Positive attitudes about the benefits of substance use increased during the virtual program. Thematic analysis revealed problems with implementing the virtual program, including low attendance and technology issues. DISCUSSION: In-person programs moved to virtual delivery may be less effective at reaching at-risk youth, may have smaller impact on risk prevention and may encounter logistical problems. Because previous research has found that technology-based interventions can be effective, future research should seek to evaluate how to strengthen evidence-based practices when delivery modality changes.

The role of trauma and positive youth development in polysubstance use among rural middle school students: a latent class analysis.

BACKGROUND: Rural youth often begin developing polysubstance use and other risk behaviors during middle school. However, little polysubstance use research focuses on rural middle school youth. Our research uses Latent Class Analysis to understand existing patterns of rural middle school polysubstance use and risk and protective factors associated with polysubstance use. METHODS: We used survey data from a rural middle school pregnancy prevention program (N = 2,708). The survey included measures of demographics, lifetime substance use, trauma (adverse childhood experiences and bullying victimization) and aspects of youth development (parent communication on drugs and alcohol, parent connectedness and school connectedness). We used latent class analysis to produce participant polysubstance use profiles and multinomial regression to examine associations between polysubstance use, demographics, trauma and aspects of youth development. RESULTS: We categorized our participants into four latent classes. Our analysis classified 2.2% of participants as Regular Polysubstance users, 6.9% as Polysubstance experimenters, 19% as Vape + Alcohol experimenters and 71.9% as Non-Users. More adverse childhood experiences were associated with greater risk of polysubstance use and experimentation. Bullying was positively associated with greater risk of vape and alcohol experimentation. Higher reported parental and school connectedness were associated with lower risk of high frequency polysubstance use. Higher reported school connection was also associated with lower risk of polysubstance experimentation. CONCLUSION: Rural substance use prevention programs should begin during middle school, as polysubstance use development is common among rural middle schoolers. These programs should be trauma informed and focus on connectedness as a modifiable factor to reduce risk of polysubstance use development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This article does not report results of a health care intervention on human participants.