David R Foxcroft1, Alexander Tsertsvadze. 1. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brooks University, Oxford, UK. david.foxcroft@brookes.ac.uk
Abstract
AIMS: Alcohol misuse by young people causes significant health and social harm, including death and disability. Therefore, prevention of youth alcohol misuse is a policy aim in many countries. Our aim was to examine the effectiveness of (1) school-based, (2) family-based and (3) multi-component universal alcohol misuse prevention programmes in children and adolescents. METHODS: Three Cochrane systematic reviews were performed: searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Project CORK and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to July 2010, including randomised trials evaluating universal alcohol misuse prevention programmes in school, family or multiple settings in youths aged 18 years or younger. Two independent reviewers identified eligible studies and any discrepancies were resolved via discussion. RESULTS: A total of 85 trials were included in the reviews of school (n = 53), family (n = 12) and multi-component (n = 20) programmes. Meta-analysis was not performed due to study heterogeneity. Most studies were conducted in North America. Risk of bias assessment revealed problems related to inappropriate unit of analysis, moderate to high attrition, selective outcome reporting and potential confounding. Certain generic psychosocial and life skills school-based programmes were effective in reducing alcohol use in youth. Most family-based programmes were effective. There was insufficient evidence to conclude that multiple interventions provided additional benefit over single interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In these Cochrane reviews, some school, family or multi-component prevention programmes were shown to be effective in reducing alcohol misuse in youths. However, these results warrant a cautious interpretation, since bias and/or contextual factors may have affected the trial results. Further research should replicate the most promising studies identified in these reviews and pay particular attention to content and context factors through rigorous evaluation.
AIMS: Alcohol misuse by young people causes significant health and social harm, including death and disability. Therefore, prevention of youth alcohol misuse is a policy aim in many countries. Our aim was to examine the effectiveness of (1) school-based, (2) family-based and (3) multi-component universal alcohol misuse prevention programmes in children and adolescents. METHODS: Three Cochrane systematic reviews were performed: searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Project CORK and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials up to July 2010, including randomised trials evaluating universal alcohol misuse prevention programmes in school, family or multiple settings in youths aged 18 years or younger. Two independent reviewers identified eligible studies and any discrepancies were resolved via discussion. RESULTS: A total of 85 trials were included in the reviews of school (n = 53), family (n = 12) and multi-component (n = 20) programmes. Meta-analysis was not performed due to study heterogeneity. Most studies were conducted in North America. Risk of bias assessment revealed problems related to inappropriate unit of analysis, moderate to high attrition, selective outcome reporting and potential confounding. Certain generic psychosocial and life skills school-based programmes were effective in reducing alcohol use in youth. Most family-based programmes were effective. There was insufficient evidence to conclude that multiple interventions provided additional benefit over single interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In these Cochrane reviews, some school, family or multi-component prevention programmes were shown to be effective in reducing alcohol misuse in youths. However, these results warrant a cautious interpretation, since bias and/or contextual factors may have affected the trial results. Further research should replicate the most promising studies identified in these reviews and pay particular attention to content and context factors through rigorous evaluation.
Authors: Zila M Sanchez; Juliana Y Valente; Adriana Sanudo; Ana Paula D Pereira; Joselaine I Cruz; Daniela Schneider; Solange Andreoni Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2017-10
Authors: John Strang; Nora D Volkow; Louisa Degenhardt; Matthew Hickman; Kimberly Johnson; George F Koob; Brandon D L Marshall; Mark Tyndall; Sharon L Walsh Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Gary C K Chan; Adrian B Kelly; John W Toumbourou; Sheryl A Hemphill; Ross McD Young; Michele A Haynes; Richard F Catalano Journal: Addiction Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 6.526