Advanced LifeSkills Training is a school-based substance misuse prevention intervention for all children aged between 11 and 14 years old. It is delivered by teachers, social workers, or youth workers to groups of children in the classroom for 36 sessions. It teaches children and young people personal self-management skills, social skills, and strategies for resisting tobacco, alcohol, and drugs.
The information above is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
12 to 13 years old
Group
Advanced LifeSkills Training (LST) is a school-based substance misuse prevention intervention designed to help young people avoid tobacco, alcohol, and drug use.
Advanced LifeSkills Training is delivered to classrooms of children or young people by teachers, social workers, or youth workers. The curriculum teaches children and young people personal self-management skills, social skills, and strategies for resisting tobacco, alcohol, and drugs.
Advanced LST is delivered in 36 sessions of one hour’s duration each by one teacher, social worker, or youth worker to classrooms of young people. 17 of these sessions are delivered when the young people are between 11 and 12 years old (level 1). 12 sessions are delivered when they are between 12 and 13 years old (level 2), and a further seven sessions are delivered when they are between 13 and 14 years old (level 3) – these act as booster sessions so that key concepts and skills are reinforced and developed over time.
The curriculum is taught with a variety of techniques to include facilitation, coaching, assessment, and behavioural rehearsal which are proven training methods. Young people receive a copy of their own workbook called the ‘LifeSkills Magazine’ which is full of activities and exercises which reinforce what they have learned in class. There are also letters available as part of the intervention to send home to parents so they can reinforce the techniques being used.
11 to 14 years old.
Students aged 11 to 14 old.
Disclaimer: The information in this section is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.
Science-based assumption
Substance misuse often occurs in young adulthood, with early initiation in adolescence increasing the risk of long-term misuse.
Science-based assumption
Strong self-management skills protect children and young people from misusing tobacco, alcohol, and illegal drugs.
Science-based assumption
All young people aged 11 to 14 years old.
Intervention
LST teaches young people self-management skills such as decision-making and dealing with stress, social skills such as effective communication, and strategies for resisting peer pressure such as assertiveness.
Short-term
Young people have better awareness about the misconceptions associated with drugs, tobacco, and alcohol.
Young people are also better able to communicate positively with others.
Medium-term
Improved peer relationships
Increased resistance to risky behaviours
Improved school performance.
Long-term
Reduced risk-taking behaviours and substance misuse.
Students aged 11 to 14 years old
Advanced LifeSkills Training is delivered in 36 sessions of one hours’ duration each by one teacher, social worker, or youth worker, to classrooms of young people.
17 of these sessions are delivered when the young people are aged between 12 to 12 years old. 12 sessions are delivered when they are aged between 12 and 13 years old, and a further seven booster sessions are delivered when they are aged between 13 and 14 years old.
The curriculum teaches children and young people personal self-management skills, social skills, and strategies for resisting tobacco, alcohol, and drugs.
The curriculum is taught with a variety of techniques to include facilitation, coaching, assessment, and behavioural rehearsal which are proven training methods.
Young people receive a copy of their own workbook called the ‘LifeSkills Magazine’ which is full of activities and exercises which reinforce what they have learned in class.
There are also letters available as part of the intervention to send home to parents so they can reinforce the techniques being used.
The practitioner who delivers this intervention is a classroom teacher (or youth/social worker).
The practitioners have 14 hours of intervention training. Booster training of practitioners is recommended.
It is recommended that practitioners are supervised by one intervention developer supervisor.
Intervention fidelity is maintained through the following processes:
Contact person: Lauren Spiers
Organisation: Barnardos
Email address: Lauren.spiers@barnardos.org.uk
Websites: https://www.lifeskillstraining.com/
www.barnardos.org.uk/lifeskills
http://www.episcenter.psu.edu/ebp/lifeskills
*Please note that this information may not be up to date. In this case, please visit the listed intervention website for up to date contact details.
Advanced LifeSkills Training’s most rigorous evidence comes from three RCTs which were conducted in the United States.
This study identified statistically significant reductions in risk-taking, alcohol use, drug use, smoking, and alcohol-related problems.
Advanced LifeSkills Training can be described as evidence-based: it has evidence from at least one rigorously conducted RCT or QED demonstrating a statistically significant positive impact on at least one child outcome, as well as at least one more RCT or QED.
Reduced risk-taking
Long-term: A year later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced drunkenness frequency
Long-term: A year later, Long-term: 9 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced smoking frequency
Long-term: A year later, Long-term: 9 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced smoking quantity
Long-term: a year later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced drinking frequency
Long-term: a year later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced drinking quantity
Long-term: a year later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced frequency of inhalant use
Long-term: a year later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced current polydrug use
Long-term: a year later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced lifetime polydrug use
Long-term: a year later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced binge drinking
Long-term: a year later, Long-term: 2 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced substance initiation
Long-term: 5 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
Reduced alcohol-related problems
Long-term: 9 years later
Improvement index
Interpretation
Study
| Identified in search | 9 |
| Studies reviewed | 2 |
| Meeting the L2 threshold | 0 |
| Meeting the L3 threshold | 2 |
| Contributing to the L4 threshold | 0 |
| Ineligible | 7 |
| Study design | RCT |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | 5,222 children with a mean age of 12.9 from 29 New York City schools. |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities |
|
| Population risk factors |
|
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 3 |
| Citations | Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W., Diaz, T. & Ifill-Williams, M. (2001) Drug abuse prevention among minority adolescents: Posttest and one-year follow-up of a school-based preventive intervention. Prevention Science. 2 (1), 1–13. |
| Study design | RCT |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | 3,041 children with a mean age of 12.9 years, from 29 schools in New York city. |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities |
|
| Population risk factors | The sample was predominantly composed of ethnic minority groups and was economically disadvantaged (62% free school lunch). Approximately half (55%) of students lived in a two-parent household and 35% lived in mother-only households. |
| Timing | Two-year follow-up |
| Child outcomes | Reduced binge drinking (youth self-report) |
| Other outcomes | None. |
| Study rating | 3 |
| Citations | Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W., Diaz, T. & Ifill-Williams, M. (2001) Preventing binge drinking during early adolescence: One- and two-year follow-up of a school-based preventive intervention. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors. 15 (4), 360–365. |
| Study design | Cluster RCT |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | 1,667 children aged between 12 and 13 years old. |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities | 96% White |
| Population risk factors | Participants were predominately from rural areas. |
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes | Reduced substance initiation (youth self-report) |
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 3 |
| Citations | Spoth, R. L., Randall, G. K., Trudeau, L., Shin, C. & Redmond, C. (2008) Substance use outcomes 5½ years past baseline for partnership-based, family-school preventive interventions. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 96 (1–2), 57–68. |
| Study design | Cluster RCT |
| Country | United States |
| Sample characteristics | 1,667 children aged between 12 and 13 years old from 36 schools. |
| Race, ethnicities, and nationalities | 99% White |
| Population risk factors | The sample was predominately recruited from rural areas and focused on a higher-risk subsample of students who had initiated use of two or more substances by the time of pretesting. |
| Timing |
|
| Child outcomes |
|
| Other outcomes | None |
| Study rating | 3 |
| Citations | Spoth, R., Trudeau, L., Redmond, C. & Shin, C. (2014) Replication RCT of early universal prevention effects on young adult substance misuse. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 82 (6), 949–96. |
The following studies were identified for this intervention but did not count towards the intervention’s overall evidence rating. An intervention receives the same rating as its most robust study or studies.
Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W. & Williams, C. (2015) Preventing daily substance use among high school students using a cognitive-behavioral competence enhancement approach. World Journal of Preventive Medicine. 3 (3), 48–53.
Botvin, G. J., Griffin, K. W. & Nichols, T. D. (2006).Preventing youth violence and delinquency through a universal school-based prevention approach. Prevention Science. 7 (4), 403–408.
Botvin, G. J., Epstein, J. A., Baker, E., Diaz, T. & Ifill-Williams, M. (1997) School-based drug abuse prevention with inner-city minority youth. Journal of Child & Adolescent Substance Abuse. 6 (1), 5–19.
Crowley, D. M., Jones, D. E., Coffman, D. L. & Greenberg, M. T. (2014) Can we build an efficient response to the prescription drug abuse epidemic? Assessing the cost effectiveness of universal prevention in the PROSPER trial. Preventive Medicine. 62, 71–77.
MacKillop, J., Ryabchenko, K. A. & Lisman, S. A. (2006) Life skills training outcomes and potential mechanisms in a community implementation: A preliminary investigation. Substance Use & Misuse. 41 (14), 1921–1935.
Sneddon, H. (2015) LifeSkills substance misuse prevention programme: Evaluation of implementation and outcomes in the UK. Full report.
Spoth, R., Trudeau, L., Shin, C., Ralston, E., Redmond, C., Greenberg, M. & Feinberg, M. (2013) Longitudinal effects of universal preventive intervention on prescription drug misuse: Three randomized controlled trials with late adolescents and young adults. American Journal of Public Health. 103 (4), 665–672.
Note on provider involvement: This provider has agreed to Foundations’ terms of reference (or the Early Intervention Foundation's terms of reference), and the assessment has been conducted and published with the full cooperation of the intervention provider.
Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.
Click here for more information.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.
Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.
Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.
Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.
Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.
Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.
Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.
Click here for more information.
