Cardiovascular DiseasesNCT00005331
Providers for Smoking Prevention Programs
An observational study of Cardiovascular Diseases and Coronary Heart Disease Risk Reduction, run by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI).
Trial summary
To conduct a randomized controlled smoking prevention trial to evaluate quality of implementation and effectiveness, as a function of provider type (school teacher vs. nurse) and training (mediated vs. interactive). Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages Up to 100 years, men only
- Conditions the study is for
- Cardiovascular Diseases, Coronary Heart Disease Risk Reduction, Heart Diseases
- How many people
- Not given
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Sep 1988to Feb 1995
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Up to 100 years
- Men only
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult, Older adult
No eligibility criteria
About this study
To conduct a randomized controlled smoking prevention trial to evaluate quality of implementation and effectiveness, as a function of provider type (school teacher vs. nurse) and training (mediated vs. interactive).
Read the detailed description
DESIGN NARRATIVE:
The study compared smoking prevention in junior high schools and in high schools either receiving or not receiving a school-wide community intervention. The junior high school curriculum was delivered to all volunteers in grades 6, 7, and 8 in each intervention school. All participants were tested five times: midway through grade 6 before the intervention began, and at the end of grades 7,8,9, and 10. The primary endpoint was self-reported smoking status at the ends of grades 8 and 10. The validity of smoking reports was enhanced with collection of breath carbon monoxide samples for all subjects at all test points.
The study was extended for an additional three years to add to the three year, junior high, design a two arm comparison between high schools either receiving or not receiving a school-wide, community, intervention. The new high school intervention responded to both recent evidence of long term decay in junior high program effectiveness, and a trend toward greater high school smoking onset most notably among females. Secondary objectives for this Demonstration and Education research included (a) a test of the hypothesis that higher levels of implementation were associated with better outcomes; (b) preparation for diffusion of a complete set of curriculum, provider training, program implementation, and evaluation methods and materials; and (c) study of the effects of school environment on program effectiveness.
One hundred junior high schools were randomly selected and assigned, 20 per condition, and some 5,000 Grade 6 youth with approximately the same number of females and males, recruited to cohort which participated in intervention and evaluation through the end of Grade 10. The junior high curriculum was delivered to all volunteers in each intervention school in Grades 6, 7, and 8. All participants were tested five times: midway through Grade 6 before the intervention began, and at the end of Grades 7, 8, 9 and 10. The primary endpoint was self-reported smoking status at the ends of Grades 8 and 10, 2 1/2 and 4 1/2 years after the intervention began. The validity of smoking reports were enhanced with collection of breath carbon monoxide samples from all subjects at all test points.
The new high school intervention integrated three approaches: attitude-behavior change strategies derived from social psychological research on dissonance, self-perception, values, social norms, and commitment; organizational/cultural change strategies using student- driven participatory planning and multilevel change methods; and mobilization strategies adapted from the National Cancer Institute-funded Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation (COMMIT). A comprehensive implementation evaluation used direct observation, multiple sources of self-report, program records, and cost data to assess the relationships between implementation, outcome, and cost- effectiveness; to provide direct measures of training and mobilization effects; and to develop feasible implementation evaluation methodology for future diffusion studies.
The study completion date listed in this record was obtained from the "End Date" entered in the Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) record.
- Conditions
- Cardiovascular Diseases, Coronary Heart Disease Risk Reduction, Heart Diseases, Lung Diseases
- Medical subject headings
- Cardiovascular Diseases, Heart Diseases, Lung Diseases
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted26 May 2000 (estimated)
- Study startSep 1988
- Study completionFeb 1995
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Cardiovascular DiseasesStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)The sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
Sponsor and investigators
- Sponsor type
- US National Institutes of Health
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00005331
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 4152
- Other IDs
- R01HL036171
- Status last verified
- Jul 2000
- First submitted
- 25 May 2000
- Last updated
- 13 May 2016
- Results posted
- No
Publications
Santi SM, Best JA, Payne ME, Brown KS, Cameron R. A comparison between instructional experience and performance of teachers and nurses delivering a smoking prevention program. Can J Public Health. 1992 Nov-Dec;83(6):433-6.
PubMed 1286445Santi SM, Cargo M, Brown KS, Best JA, Cameron R. Dispositional risk factors for smoking-stage transitions: a social influences program as an effect modifier. Addict Behav. 1994 May-Jun;19(3):269-85. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(94)90029-9.
PubMed 7942245Cameron R, Brown KS, Best JA, Pelkman CL, Madill CL, Manske SR, Payne ME. Effectiveness of a social influences smoking prevention program as a function of provider type, training method, and school risk. Am J Public Health. 1999 Dec;89(12):1827-31. doi: 10.2105/ajph.89.12.1827.
PubMed 10589310
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 May 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Providers for Smoking Prevention Programs
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT00005331
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 4152
- Conditions
- Cardiovascular Diseases, Coronary Heart Disease Risk Reduction, Heart Diseases, Lung Diseases
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Lead sponsor
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)US National Institutes of Health
- Study start
- Sep 1988
- Study completion
- Feb 1995 (actual)
- First posted
- 26 May 2000 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
To conduct a randomized controlled smoking prevention trial to evaluate quality of implementation and effectiveness, as a function of provider type (school teacher vs. nurse) and training (mediated vs. interactive).
Detailed description
DESIGN NARRATIVE:
The study compared smoking prevention in junior high schools and in high schools either receiving or not receiving a school-wide community intervention. The junior high school curriculum was delivered to all volunteers in grades 6, 7, and 8 in each intervention school. All participants were tested five times: midway through grade 6 before the intervention began, and at the end of grades 7,8,9, and 10. The primary endpoint was self-reported smoking status at the ends of grades 8 and 10. The validity of smoking reports was enhanced with collection of breath carbon monoxide samples for all subjects at all test points.
The study was extended for an additional three years to add to the three year, junior high, design a two arm comparison between high schools either receiving or not receiving a school-wide, community, intervention. The new high school intervention responded to both recent evidence of long term decay in junior high program effectiveness, and a trend toward greater high school smoking onset most notably among females. Secondary objectives for this Demonstration and Education research included (a) a test of the hypothesis that higher levels of implementation were associated with better outcomes; (b) preparation for diffusion of a complete set of curriculum, provider training, program implementation, and evaluation methods and materials; and (c) study of the effects of school environment on program effectiveness.
One hundred junior high schools were randomly selected and assigned, 20 per condition, and some 5,000 Grade 6 youth with approximately the same number of females and males, recruited to cohort which participated in intervention and evaluation through the end of Grade 10. The junior high curriculum was delivered to all volunteers in each intervention school in Grades 6, 7, and 8. All participants were tested five times: midway through Grade 6 before the intervention began, and at the end of Grades 7, 8, 9 and 10. The primary endpoint was self-reported smoking status at the ends of Grades 8 and 10, 2 1/2 and 4 1/2 years after the intervention began. The validity of smoking reports were enhanced with collection of breath carbon monoxide samples from all subjects at all test points.
The new high school intervention integrated three approaches: attitude-behavior change strategies derived from social psychological research on dissonance, self-perception, values, social norms, and commitment; organizational/cultural change strategies using student- driven participatory planning and multilevel change methods; and mobilization strategies adapted from the National Cancer Institute-funded Community Intervention Trial for Smoking Cessation (COMMIT). A comprehensive implementation evaluation used direct observation, multiple sources of self-report, program records, and cost data to assess the relationships between implementation, outcome, and cost- effectiveness; to provide direct measures of training and mobilization effects; and to develop feasible implementation evaluation methodology for future diffusion studies.
The study completion date listed in this record was obtained from the "End Date" entered in the Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) record.
Study design
Who may qualify
- Ages
- Up to 100 years
- Sex
- Male only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Not reported in the source record.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 May 2016.
- Background: PubMed 1286445Santi SM, Best JA, Payne ME, Brown KS, Cameron R. A comparison between instructional experience and performance of teachers and nurses delivering a smoking prevention program. Can J Public Health. 1992 Nov-Dec;83(6):433-6.
- Background: PubMed 7942245Santi SM, Cargo M, Brown KS, Best JA, Cameron R. Dispositional risk factors for smoking-stage transitions: a social influences program as an effect modifier. Addict Behav. 1994 May-Jun;19(3):269-85. doi: 10.1016/0306-4603(94)90029-9.
- Background: PubMed 10589310Cameron R, Brown KS, Best JA, Pelkman CL, Madill CL, Manske SR, Payne ME. Effectiveness of a social influences smoking prevention program as a function of provider type, training method, and school risk. Am J Public Health. 1999 Dec;89(12):1827-31. doi: 10.2105/ajph.89.12.1827.
Related trials for Cardiovascular Diseases
RecruitingPhase 2
A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of Cemsidomide + Dexamethasone in Participants With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma
Multiple Myeloma, Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma
RecruitingPhase 2/3
Efficacy, Safety, and Pharmacokinetics of Vericiguat in Pediatric Participants With Heart Failure Due to Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction (MK-1242-036)
Heart Failure, Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction
RecruitingPhase 4
Efficacy and Safety of a Half-dose Bolus of r-SAK Prior to Primary PCI in ST-elevation Myocardial Infarction
ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction
Active, not recruitingPhase 4
Women's IschemiA TRial to Reduce Events In Non-ObstRuctive CAD
Coronary Artery Disease
Active, not recruiting
VOLT CE Mark Study
Atrial Arrhythmia, Atrial Fibrillation
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Cardiovascular Diseases and Coronary Heart Disease Risk Reduction, run by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 May 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT00005331, which also lists 3 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 May 2016.