BACKGROUND: Use of alcohol and illicit drugs by adolescents is an important problem worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a systematic review of mentoring in preventing/reducing adolescents' alcohol and drug use. DATA SOURCES: We searched 8 multidisciplinary electronic databases, the gray literature, and reference lists of included studies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mentoring in adolescents to prevent/reduce alcohol or drug use. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included in this review. Four RCTs provided evidence on mentoring and alcohol use. The 2 that could be pooled showed less alcohol use by mentored youth. Six RCTs on mentoring and drug use were identified, 2 of which provided some evidence of the effect of mentoring in reducing drug use. LIMITATIONS: Only 1 RCT was at low risk of bias for randomization. None of the studies stated they concealed allocation. Of the 6 included studies, 1 was at high risk and 5 at unclear risk for attrition. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Four RCTs provided evidence on mentoring and alcohol use, and the 2 that could be pooled showed less use by mentored youth. The 6 RCTs that provided evidence on drug use could not be pooled. Two did provide some evidence that mentoring is associated with less drug use. Very few well-designed studies evaluate the effects of mentoring on adolescent drug and alcohol use.
BACKGROUND: Use of alcohol and illicit drugs by adolescents is an important problem worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To undertake a systematic review of mentoring in preventing/reducing adolescents' alcohol and drug use. DATA SOURCES: We searched 8 multidisciplinary electronic databases, the gray literature, and reference lists of included studies. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTIONS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mentoring in adolescents to prevent/reduce alcohol or drug use. RESULTS: Six RCTs were included in this review. Four RCTs provided evidence on mentoring and alcohol use. The 2 that could be pooled showed less alcohol use by mentored youth. Six RCTs on mentoring and drug use were identified, 2 of which provided some evidence of the effect of mentoring in reducing drug use. LIMITATIONS: Only 1 RCT was at low risk of bias for randomization. None of the studies stated they concealed allocation. Of the 6 included studies, 1 was at high risk and 5 at unclear risk for attrition. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: Four RCTs provided evidence on mentoring and alcohol use, and the 2 that could be pooled showed less use by mentored youth. The 6 RCTs that provided evidence on drug use could not be pooled. Two did provide some evidence that mentoring is associated with less drug use. Very few well-designed studies evaluate the effects of mentoring on adolescent drug and alcohol use.