2005 Annual Report of the American Association of Poison Control Centers' national poisoning and exposure database.

BACKGROUND: The American Association of Poison Control Centers (AAPCC; http://www.aapcc.org) maintains the national database of information logged by the country's 61 Poison Control Centers (PCCs). Case records in this database are from self-reported calls: they reflect only information provided when the public or healthcare professionals report an actual or potential exposure to a substance (e.g., an ingestion, inhalation, or topical exposure.), or request information/educational materials. Exposures do not necessarily represent a poisoning or overdose. The AAPCC is not able to completely verify the accuracy of every report made to member centers. Additional exposures may go unreported to PCCs, and data referenced from the AAPCC should not be construed to represent the complete incidence of national exposures to any substance(s). U.S. Poison Centers make possible the compilation and reporting of this report through their staffs' meticulous documentation of each case using standardized definitions and compatible computer systems. The 61 participating poison centers in 2005 are: Regional Poison Control Center, Birmingham, AL; Alabama Poison Center, Tuscaloosa, AL; Arizona Poison and Drug Information Center, Tucson, AZ; Banner Poison Control Center, Phoenix, AZ; Arkansas Poison and Drug Information Center, Little Rock, AK; California Poison Control System-Fresno/Madera Division, CA; California Poison Control System-Sacramento Division, CA; California Poison Control System-San Diego Division, CA; California Poison Control System-San Francisco Division, CA; Rocky Mountain Poison and Drug Center, Denver, CO; Connecticut Poison Control Center, Farmington, CT; National Capital Poison Center, Washington, DC; Florida Poison Information Center, Tampa, FL; Florida Poison Information Center, Jacksonville, FL; Florida Poison Information Center, Miami, FL; Georgia Poison Center, Atlanta, GA; Illinois Poison Center, Chicago, IL; Indiana Poison Center, Indianapolis, IN; Iowa Statewide Poison Control Center, Sioux City, IA; Mid-America Poison Control Center, Kansas City, KA; Kentucky Regional Poison Center, Louisville, KY; Louisiana Drug and Poison Information Center, Monroe, LA; Northern New England Poison Center, Portland, ME; Maryland Poison Center, Baltimore, MD; Regional Center for Poison Control and Prevention Serving Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Boston, MA; Children's Hospital of Michigan Regional Poison Control Center, Detroit, MI; DeVos Children's Hospital Regional Poison Center, Grand Rapids, MI; Hennepin Regional Poison Center, Minneapolis, MN; Mississippi Regional Poison Control Center, Jackson, MS; Missouri Regional Poison Center, St Louis, MO; Nebraska Regional Poison Center, Omaha, NE; New Jersey Poison Information and Education System, Newark, NJ; New Mexico Poison and Drug Information Center, Albuquerque, NM; New York City Poison Control Center, New York, NY; Long Island Regional Poison and Drug Information Center, Mineola, NY; Ruth A. Lawrence Poison and Drug Information Center, Rochester, NY; Upstate (formerly Central) New York Poison Center, Syracuse, NY; Western New York Poison Center, Buffalo, NY; Carolinas Poison Center, Charlotte, NC; Cincinnati Drug and Poison Information Center, Cincinnati, OH; Central Ohio Poison Center, Columbus, OH; Greater Cleveland Poison Control Center, Cleveland, OH; Oklahoma Poison Control Center, Oklahoma City, OK; Oregon Poison Center, Portland, OR; Pittsburgh Poison Center, Pittsburgh, PA; The Poison Control Center, Philadelphia, PA; Puerto Rico Poison Center, San Juan, PR; Palmetto Poison Center, Columbia, SC; Tennessee Poison Center, Nashville, TN; Central Texas Poison Center, Temple, TX; North Texas Poison Center, Dallas, TX; Southeast Texas Poison Center, Galveston, TX; Texas Panhandle Poison Center, Amarillo, TX; West Texas Regional Poison Center, El Paso, TX; South Texas Poison Center, San Antonio, TX; Utah Poison Control Center, Salt Lake City, UT; Virginia Poison Center, Richmond, VA; Blue Ridge Poison Center, Charlottesville, VA; Washington Poison Center, Seattle, WA; West Virginia Poison Center, Charleston, WV; Wisconsin Poison Center, Milwaukee, WI.

Long-term reductions in sexual initiation and sexual activity among urban middle schoolers in the reach for health service learning program.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the sustained effectiveness of a middle school service learning intervention on reducing sexual initiation and recent sex among urban African-American and Latino adolescents from 7th grade through the 10th grade. METHODS: During the fall of seventh grade and again in eighth grade, students were randomly assigned by classroom to participate either in community youth service (CYS) or not (controls). Service learning is an educational strategy that couples meaningful service in the community with classroom instruction. Students in both intervention and control conditions received classroom health lessons. Surveys were conducted at seventh grade baseline and at the end of 10th grade, approximately 2 years after intervention. Self-reported sexual behaviors of youths who had participated in CYS were compared with those of controls receiving classroom curriculum alone (n = 195). RESULTS: CYS participants were significantly less likely than controls to report sexual initiation (2 years CYS, odds ratio [OR] = 0.32; 1 year, OR = 0.49) as well as recent sex (2 years CYS, OR = 0.39; 1 year CYS, OR = 0.48). Among those who were virgins at seventh grade, 80% of males in the curriculum-only condition had initiated sex, compared with 61.5% who received 1 year of CYS, and 50% who received 2 years. Among females, the figures were 65.2%, 48.3%, and 39.6%, respectively. CONCLUSION: A service learning intervention that combines community involvement with health instruction can have a long-term benefit by reducing sexual risk taking among urban adolescents.

Programs-that-work: CDC's guide to effective programs that reduce health-risk behavior of youth.

In response to requests from educators for effective programs that reduce health-risk behavior among youth, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initiated "Programs-That-Work" (PTW) in 1992 to identify health education programs with credible evidence of effectiveness. CDC identified as PTW two programs to reduce tobacco use and eight programs to reduce sexual risk behaviors. Eligible programs undergo a two-step external review to examine quality of the research evidence and the extent to which the programs are practical for use by health educators. If CDC identifies a programs as a PTW on the basis of external review, the program is packaged and made available for dissemination to education and youth agencies. Communities ultimately make the decision about adopting a program, and CDC does not require their use. Thousands of educators have sought information about PTW through the CDC web site, informational brochures, and training.

Challenges to collaboration in school mental health and strategies for overcoming them.

BACKGROUND: This article reviews challenges to collaboration in school mental health (SMH) and presents practical strategies for overcoming them. METHODS: The importance of collaboration to the success of SMH programs is reviewed, with a particular focus on collaboration between school- and community-employed professionals. Challenges to effective collaboration between school- and community-employed professionals in SMH are considered. Strategies for overcoming challenges to effective collaboration are presented. RESULTS: Marginalization of the SMH agenda, limited interdisciplinary teamwork, restricted coordination mechanisms, confidentiality concerns, and resource and funding issues are key challenges to collaboration. Strategies targeted toward each of these challenges may help improve the effectiveness of SMH programs and ultimately student outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration between school- and community-employed professionals is critical to the success of SMH programs. Despite its promise, the success of SMH programs can be jeopardized by ineffective collaboration between school- and community-employed professionals. Strategies to overcome marginalization, promote authentic interdisciplinary teamwork, build effective coordination mechanisms, protect student and family confidentiality, and promote policy change and resource enhancements should be addressed in SMH improvement planning.