Advertisement

Journal of Public Health

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 389–395 | Cite as

Family-based prevention against substance abuse and behavioral problems: culture-sensitive adaptation process for the modification of the US-American Strengthening Families Program 10–14 to German conditions

  • Martin Stolle
  • Julian Stappenbeck
  • Astrid Wendell
  • Rainer Thomasius
Original Article

Abstract

Aim

The Strengthening Families Program 10–14 (SFP 10–14) was developed in 1993 at the Iowa State University as a universal family-based prevention program against substance abuse and behavioral problems in youth aged 10 to 14 years. Its effectiveness in delaying the initiation of tobacco, alcohol and cannabis use, in decreasing the average amount consumed and in reducing adolescents’ problem behavior in school and at home has been repeatedly evaluated in randomized-controlled studies in the US. While there is a well-established system of school- and community-based prevention in Germany, there is a lack of family-based prevention. This situation would be improved by the cultural adaptation and evaluation of SFP 10–14 in Germany.

Subjects and methods

Focus group meetings were held with experts from family assistance and drug prevention, as well as with parents of children within the ages of the target group, in three geographically different cities in Germany (Hamburg, Schwerin and Munich). Group members were presented the original version of the material from the US (teaching manuals and DVDs), as well as an already adapted version from the UK. Group members developed criteria in a group discussion process necessary for the adaptation of the material to the German culture. Following the newly defined criteria, new teaching DVDs and manuals were produced.

Results

As a result of the focus groups meetings, several aspects concerning the adaptation of the material had to be considered. Four aspects were especially important: (1) application to the regional social structures in Germany, within the target group (risk population: migration background, socioeconomic status, family structure), (2) adaptation to the German language (colloquial language, idiomatic expressions, non-verbal language), (3) consideration of culturally dependent norms about parents’ and children’s role model behavior, as well as the problem definition for behavior that is supposed to be addressed (family, school, peer group) and (4) the program’s adequate incorporation into the conditions of the local support system.

Conclusions

Neither of the two existing SFP versions (US and UK version) could serve as a matrix for the German version, extensive adaptations were necessary. Results from the adaptation process carried out earlier in the UK with the original material from the US were helpful in this process. The German version of the program (Familien stärken) will be evaluated for a target group that consists of families with low socioeconomic status. This randomized-controlled multicenter study will be carried out in different German cities (Hamburg, Hanover, Schwerin, Rostock and Munich) between 2010 and 2013.

Keywords

Family-based drug prevention Cultural adaptation Strengthening Families Program 10–14 Adolescence 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The cultural adaptation was carried out in a pilot study that was supported by the non-profit organizations “Keine Macht den Drogen e. V.” and by the “Förderverein für suchtgefährdete Kinder und Jugendliche e. V. (FSKJ)”. The evaluation study is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Allen D, Coombes L, Foxcroft DR (2006) Cultural accommodation of the Strengthening Families Programme 10–14: UK Phase I Study. Health Education Research Advance Access, Oxford Press, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar
  2. Bronfenbrenner U, Morris PA (1998) The ecology of developmental processes. In: Damon W, Lerner RM (eds) Handbook of child psychology, vol.1: theoretical models of human development, 5th edn. Wiley, New York, pp 993–1028Google Scholar
  3. Bühler A, Kröger C (2006) Expertise zur Prävention des Substanzmissbrauchs, Band 29. BZgA, Cologne, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  4. Foxcroft DR (2006) Alcohol misuse Prevention for young people: a rapid review of recent evidence. WHO Technical Report, WHO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  5. Foxcroft DR, Ireland D, Lister-Sharp DJ, Lowe G, Breen R (2003) Longer-term primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people: a systematic review. Addiction 98:397–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gates S, McCambridge J, Smith LA, Foxcroft DR (2006) Interventions For Prevention of Drug Use by Young People Delivered in Non-Scholl Settings. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 1, Art. no. CD 005030. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005030.pub2
  7. Gorman DM, Conde E, Huber JC (2007) The creation of ‘evidence based’ drug prevention: a critique of the strengthening families program plus life skills training evaluation. Drug Alcohol Rev 26(6):585–593PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gruner Gandhi A, Murpy-Graham E, Petrosino A, Schwartz Chrismer S, Weiss CH (2007) The devil is in the details: examining the evidence for “proven” school-based drug abuse prevention programs. Eval Rev 31(1):73–74Google Scholar
  9. Kumpfer KL, Alvarado R (2003) Family-strengthening approaches for the prevention of youth problem bahaviors. Am Psychol 58(6/7):457–465PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kumpfer KL, DeMarsh JP (1983) Strengthening families program: training curriculum manual. University of Utah, Graduate School of Social Work, Social Research Institute, Salt Lake City, UTGoogle Scholar
  11. Kumpfer KL, Alvarado R, Smith P, Bellamy N (2002) Cultural sensitivity and adaptation in family-based prevention interventions. Prev Sci 3:241–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Midford R (2008) Is this the path to effective prevention? Addiction 103:1169–1173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Molgaard VK, Spoth RL, Redmond C (2000) Competency training. The Strengthening Families Program: For Parents and Youth 10–14. OJJDP Juv Just Bull. www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/2000_8_1/contens.html. Cited 23 March 2007
  14. Ramey CT, Ramey SL (1998) Early intervention and early experience. Am Psychol 53:109–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Scheithauer H, Mehren F, Petermann F (2003) Entwicklungsorientierte Prävention von aggressiv-dissozialem Verhalten und Substanzmissbrauch. Kindheit Entwicklung 12(2):84–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Spoth RL, Reyes ML, Redmont C, Shin C (1999) Assessing a public health approach to delay onset and progression of adolescent substance use: latent transition and log-linear analyses of longitudinal family preventive outcomes. J Consult Clin Psychol 67(5):627–642Google Scholar
  17. Spoth RL, Redmond C, Shin C (2001) Randomized trial of brief family interventions for general populations: adolescent substance use outcomes 4 years following baseline. J Consult Clin Psychol August(4):627–642Google Scholar
  18. Spoth RL, Redmond C, Shin C, Azevedo K (2004) Brief family intervention effects on adolescent substance initiation: school-level growth curve analyses 6 years following baseline. J Consult Clin Psychol 72(3):535–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stolle M, Sack PM, Stappenbeck J, Thomasius R (2010) Familienbasierte Prävention bei Kindern und Jugendlichen: das Strengthening Families Program. Sucht 56(1):51–60Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Stolle
    • 1
  • Julian Stappenbeck
    • 1
  • Astrid Wendell
    • 1
  • Rainer Thomasius
    • 1
  1. 1.Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Deutsches Zentrum für Suchtfragen des Kindes- und JugendaltersHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations