Multi-stakeholder school interventions yielded broader and more durable outcomes than school-only models, though the pattern was not universal¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-31 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In the review's narrative synthesis, models involving stakeholders beyond students and school staff (e.g., Across Ages with parents, community members and senior mentors; SSDP and RHC with teacher, child and parent components) were reported to show significant improvements in academic performance, prosocial bonding and reduced substance use, while two school-only examples, HeadOn and SUPEP, were described as improving knowledge and attitudes without corresponding behavioural change. The review's own tables and outcome summaries do not fully bear this out: they list positive behavioural and intention outcomes for HeadOn and a reduction in substance use for SUPEP, and a multi-stakeholder design (Project Northland Chicago) had no significant effect on use. → Bajpai Tewari 2026

Evidence¶

Bajpai Tewari 2026¶

Bajpai Tewari, D., Gautam, U., Jaiswal, V., Pooja, Mishra, A., & Das, P. (2026). Integrated Education Models for Addressing Substance Use Among Schoolchildren: A Scoping Review of School-Based Educational Interventions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph23081073

q2 · i? · review · r2

Narrative synthesis (Section 3.2.2) comparing stakeholder composition across the review's included models. The review reports "the inclusion of multiple stakeholders consistently yielded broader and more durable outcomes," naming Across Ages, SSDP, Healthy School and Drugs Project, Creciendo Juntos, Ho'ouna Pono and RHC as examples that "integrated teacher training, parental workshops and community participation". The programme descriptions do not give every one of these all three components (Across Ages adds parents, community members and seniors; SSDP and RHC have teacher, child and parent components and no community participation), and the review's table lists the Healthy School and Drugs Project's stakeholders as school administration and students only. Its contrast with school-only models rests on two examples, HeadOn and SUPEP, although its outcome table reports positive behavioural outcomes for HeadOn and its text elsewhere lists SUPEP among programmes that reduced substance use. No effect sizes are printed.

"The inclusion of multiple stakeholders consistently yielded broader and more durable outcomes than those confined to students and school administration alone."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Longitudinal, integrated RaT programs produce more durable teaching skill gains than brief stand-alone workshops — a broader claim this one bears on
• Parent Implemented Intervention Improves Outcomes — related
• In selected Chicago schools, external partners sparked documented improvements in instruction, parent involvement, or school climate — related
• School-only substance use interventions such as HeadOn and SUPEP improved knowledge and attitudes without corresponding behavioural change — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
• Confidence gains after brief RaT workshops do not automatically translate into improved teaching performance — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Cultural tailoring moderated intervention effectiveness in the kiR programme family, with culturally grounded adaptations producing more favourable attitudes and behaviours — related
• The article argues the durability of the WSS co-design approach depends on institutionalizing authentic engagement as core practice, not a one-time initiative — related
• Parent Coaching Outperforms Information Only — related
• Interventions combining core simulation with in-situ refreshers, visual prompts, and structured micro-debriefs more often reported larger or more durable behavioural improvements. — related