Bosco Charles Rowland1, Joanne Williams2, Rachel Smith3, Jessica Kate Hall4, Amber Osborn5, Peter Kremer6, Adrian B Kelly7, Eva Leslie8, George Patton9, Mohammadreza Mohebbi10, John W Toumbourou4. 1. Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, Faculty of Health, School of Psychology, Centre for Social, Early and Emotional Development. Electronic address: bosco.rowland@deakin.edu.au. 2. Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, Faculty of Health, School of Health and Social Development. 3. Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia; Centre for Adolescent Health, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. 4. Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, Faculty of Health, School of Psychology, Centre for Social, Early and Emotional Development. 5. Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, Faculty of Health, School of Psychology, Centre for Social, Early and Emotional Development; Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia; Centre for Adolescent Health, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. 6. Deakin University, Geelong, Australia, Centre for Sport Research and School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences. 7. Queensland University of Technology, Faculty of Health, School of Psychology and Counselling, Australia. 8. Flinders University, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Australia. 9. Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia; Centre for Adolescent Health, Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia; The University of Melbourne, Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia. 10. Deakin University, Geelong, Faculty of Health, Biostatistics Unit, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In many countries adolescent alcohol use is a major health problem. To supplement national policies, it is important to trial community interventions as a potential strategy to prevent adolescent alcohol use. METHODS: This study evaluated a multicomponent community intervention that included community mobilisation, social marketing, and the monitoring of alcohol sales to minors. Evaluation was a clustered randomised trial design with 14 intervention and 14 control communities. Prior to randomisation, communities were matched on socioeconomic status and location. Intervention communities were not blinded. PARTICIPANTS: 3545 Year 8 students (M = 12 years) were surveyed at baseline from 75 schools; 3377 students were surveyed post intervention in 2013 from 54 schools. OUTCOMES: It was hypothesised that the primary outcome, individual alcohol consumption in last 30 days, after the intervention would be 15% lower in intervention communities. Secondary outcomes were consumption in the past year and intention not to drink before age 18. RESULTS: The intervention communities showed larger relative reductions compared to the controls in last 30-day consumption and past year (10%), but not significantly different. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the intervention community (63%), compared to the controls (71%), reported intending to drink before 18 years old. Subgroup analysis identified regional and state differences for some secondary measures. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention assignment was associated with lower adolescent intention to drink before the age of 18. However, more intensive and longer-term intervention may be required to measure significant differences in behaviour change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12612000384853. PROTOCOL: Rowland B, Toumbourou JW, Osborn A, et al. BMJ Open2013;3:e002423. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002423.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In many countries adolescent alcohol use is a major health problem. To supplement national policies, it is important to trial community interventions as a potential strategy to prevent adolescent alcohol use. METHODS: This study evaluated a multicomponent community intervention that included community mobilisation, social marketing, and the monitoring of alcohol sales to minors. Evaluation was a clustered randomised trial design with 14 intervention and 14 control communities. Prior to randomisation, communities were matched on socioeconomic status and location. Intervention communities were not blinded. PARTICIPANTS: 3545 Year 8 students (M = 12 years) were surveyed at baseline from 75 schools; 3377 students were surveyed post intervention in 2013 from 54 schools. OUTCOMES: It was hypothesised that the primary outcome, individual alcohol consumption in last 30 days, after the intervention would be 15% lower in intervention communities. Secondary outcomes were consumption in the past year and intention not to drink before age 18. RESULTS: The intervention communities showed larger relative reductions compared to the controls in last 30-day consumption and past year (10%), but not significantly different. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the intervention community (63%), compared to the controls (71%), reported intending to drink before 18 years old. Subgroup analysis identified regional and state differences for some secondary measures. CONCLUSIONS: Intervention assignment was associated with lower adolescent intention to drink before the age of 18. However, more intensive and longer-term intervention may be required to measure significant differences in behaviour change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12612000384853. PROTOCOL: Rowland B, Toumbourou JW, Osborn A, et al. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002423. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002423.
Authors: Bosco Rowland; Adrian B Kelly; Mohammadreza Mohebbi; Peter Kremer; Charles Abrahams; Julie Abimanyi-Ochom; Rob Carter; Joanne Williams; Rachel Smith; Amber Osborn; Jess Hall; Tina Hosseini; Heidi Renner; John W Toumbourou Journal: Prev Sci Date: 2021-10-09
Authors: Jennifer A Bailey; Marina Epstein; Richard F Catalano; Barbara J McMorris; Jessica A Heerde; Elizabeth Clancy; Bosco Rowland; John W Toumbourou Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2021-05 Impact factor: 2.582