Testing socioeconomic status and family socialization hypotheses of alcohol use in young people: A causal mediation analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of socioeconomic status on adolescent substance abuse may be mediated by family socialization practices. However, traditional mediation analysis using a product or difference method is susceptible to bias when assumptions are not addressed. We aimed to use a potential outcomes framework to assess assumptions of exposure-mediator interaction and of no confounding of the results. METHOD: We revisited a traditional mediation analysis with a multiple mediator causal mediation approach using data from 17,761 Norwegian young people (13-18 years), 51% female. Data were collected through a print questionnaire. Socioeconomic status was operationalized as parental education and employment status (employed or receiving welfare); drinking behavior as the frequency of alcohol consumption and frequency of intoxication in the past year; and socialization practices as general parenting measures, alcohol-related parental permissiveness, and parent drinking behavior. RESULTS: There was no consistent evidence of exposure-mediator interaction. Formal sensitivity analysis of mediator-outcome confounding was not possible in the multiple mediator model, and this analysis supported the hypothesis that socioeconomic status effects on adolescent substance abuse are fully mediated by family socialization practices, with apparently stronger effects in younger age groups observed in plots. CONCLUSION: We found that the effect of socioeconomic status on adolescent substance abuse was fully mediated by family socialization practices. While our analysis provides more rigorous support for causal inferences than past work, we could not completely rule out the possibility of unmeasured confounding.

Family-based prevention programmes for alcohol use in young people.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use in young people is a risk factor for a range of short- and long-term harms and is a cause of concern for health services, policy-makers, youth workers, teachers, and parents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of universal, selective, and indicated family-based prevention programmes in preventing alcohol use or problem drinking in school-aged children (up to 18 years of age).Specifically, on these outcomes, the review aimed:• to assess the effectiveness of universal family-based prevention programmes for all children up to 18 years ('universal interventions');• to assess the effectiveness of selective family-based prevention programmes for children up to 18 years at elevated risk of alcohol use or problem drinking ('selective interventions'); and• to assess the effectiveness of indicated family-based prevention programmes for children up to 18 years who are currently consuming alcohol, or who have initiated use or regular use ('indicated interventions'). SEARCH METHODS: We identified relevant evidence from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Ovid 1966 to June 2018), Embase (1988 to June 2018), Education Resource Information Center (ERIC; EBSCOhost; 1966 to June 2018), PsycINFO (Ovid 1806 to June 2018), and Google Scholar. We also searched clinical trial registers and handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs (C-RCTs) involving the parents of school-aged children who were part of the general population with no known risk factors (universal interventions), were at elevated risk of alcohol use or problem drinking (selective interventions), or were already consuming alcohol (indicated interventions). Psychosocial or educational interventions involving parents with or without involvement of children were compared with no intervention, or with alternate (e.g. child only) interventions, allowing experimental isolation of parent components. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 46 studies (39,822 participants), with 27 classified as universal, 12 as selective, and seven as indicated. We performed meta-analyses according to outcome, including studies reporting on the prevalence, frequency, or volume of alcohol use. The overall quality of evidence was low or very low, and there was high, unexplained heterogeneity.Upon comparing any family intervention to no intervention/standard care, we found no intervention effect on the prevalence (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.08 to 0.08; studies = 12; participants = 7490; I² = 57%; low-quality evidence) or frequency (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.83 to 0.21; studies = 8; participants = 1835; I² = 96%; very low-quality evidence) of alcohol use in comparison with no intervention/standard care. The effect of any parent/family interventions on alcohol consumption volume compared with no intervention/standard care was very small (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.00; studies = 5; participants = 1825; I² = 42%; low-quality evidence).When comparing parent/family and adolescent interventions versus interventions with young people alone, we found no difference in alcohol use prevalence (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.14; studies = 4; participants = 5640; I² = 99%; very low-quality evidence) or frequency (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.09; studies = 4; participants = 915; I² = 73%; very low-quality evidence). For this comparison, no trials reporting on the volume of alcohol use could be pooled in meta-analysis.In general, the results remained consistent in separate subgroup analyses of universal, selective, and indicated interventions. No adverse effects were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review indicate that there are no clear benefits of family-based programmes for alcohol use among young people. Patterns differ slightly across outcomes, but overall, the variation, heterogeneity, and number of analyses performed preclude any conclusions about intervention effects. Additional independent studies are required to strengthen the evidence and clarify the marginal effects observed.

Personalized Digital Interventions Showed no Impact on Risky Drinking in Young Adults: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

AIM: To assess the effectiveness of two personalized digital interventions (OneTooMany and Drinks Meter) compared to controls. METHOD: Randomized controlled trial (AEARCTR-0,001,082). Volunteers for the study, aged 18-30, were randomly allocated to one of two interventions or one of two control groups and were followed up 4 weeks later. Primary outcomes were AUDIT-C, drinking harms and pre-loading. Drinks Meter provided participants with brief screening and advice for alcohol in addition to normative feedback, information on calories consumed and money spent. OneTooMany presented a series of socially embarrassing scenarios that may occur when drinking, and participants were scored according to if/how recently they had been experienced. RESULTS: The study failed to recruit and obtain sufficient follow-up data to reach a prior estimated power for detecting a difference between groups and there was no indication in the analysable sample of 402 subjects of a difference on the primary outcome measures (Drinks Meter; AUDIT-C IRR = 0.98 (0.89-1.09); Pre-loading IRR = 1.01 (0.95-1.07); Harms IRR = 0.97 (0.79-1.20); OneTooMany; AUDIT-C IRR = 0.96 (0.86-1.07); Pre-loading IRR = 0.99 (0.93-1.06); Harms IRR = 1.16 (0.94-1.43). CONCLUSION: Further research is needed on the efficacy of such instruments and their ingredients. However, recruitment and follow-up are a challenge.

Effectiveness of the strengthening families programme 10-14 in Poland: cluster randomized controlled trial.

Background: : The Strengthening Families Programme for youth aged 10-14 and parents/carers (SFP10-14) is a family-based prevention intervention with positive results in trials in the United States. We assessed the effectiveness of SFP10-14 for preventing substance misuse in Poland. : Cluster randomized controlled trial with 20 communities (511 families; 614 young people) were allocated to SFP10-14 or a control arms. Primary outcomes were alcohol, smoking and other drug use. Secondary outcomes included parenting practices, parent-child relations, and child problem behaviour. Interview-based questionnaires were administered at baseline and at 12- and 24-months post-baseline, with respective 70.4 and 54.4%, follow-up rates. : In Bayesian regression models with complete case data we found no effects of SFP10-14 for any of the primary or secondary outcomes at either follow-up. For example at 24-months, posterior odds ratios and 95% credible intervals for past year alcohol use, past month binge drinking, past year smoking, and past year other drug use, were 0.83 (0.44-1.56), 0.83 (0.27-2.65), 1.94 (0.76-5.38) and 0.74 (0.15-3.58), respectively. Although moderate to high attrition rates, together with some evidence of systematic attrition bias according to parent education and family disposable income, could have biased the results, the results were supported in further analyses with propensity score matched data and 40 multiple imputed datasets. : We found no evidence for the effectiveness of SFP10-14 on the prevention of alcohol or tobacco use, parenting behaviour, parent-child relations or child problem behaviour at 12- or 24-month follow-up in a large cluster randomized controlled trial in Poland.

Motivational interviewing for the prevention of alcohol misuse in young adults.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use and misuse in young people is a major risk behaviour for mortality and morbidity. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a popular technique for addressing excessive drinking in young adults. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of motivational interviewing (MI) interventions for preventing alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems in young adults. SEARCH METHODS: We identified relevant evidence from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 12), MEDLINE (January 1966 to July 2015), EMBASE (January 1988 to July 2015), and PsycINFO (1985 to July 2015). We also searched clinical trial registers and handsearched references of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in young adults up to the age of 25 years comparing MIs for prevention of alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems with no intervention, assessment only or alternative interventions for preventing alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 84 trials (22,872 participants), with 70/84 studies reporting interventions in higher risk individuals or settings. Studies with follow-up periods of at least four months were of more interest in assessing the sustainability of intervention effects and were also less susceptible to short-term reporting or publication bias. Overall, the risk of bias assessment showed that these studies provided moderate or low quality evidence.At four or more months follow-up, we found effects in favour of MI for the quantity of alcohol consumed (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.15 to -0.06 or a reduction from 13.7 drinks/week to 12.5 drinks/week; moderate quality evidence); frequency of alcohol consumption (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.07 or a reduction in the number of days/week alcohol was consumed from 2.74 days to 2.52 days; moderate quality evidence); and peak blood alcohol concentration, or BAC (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.05, or a reduction from 0.144% to 0.131%; moderate quality evidence).We found a marginal effect in favour of MI for alcohol problems (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.00 or a reduction in an alcohol problems scale score from 8.91 to 8.18; low quality evidence) and no effects for binge drinking (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.02, moderate quality evidence) or for average BAC (SMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.08; moderate quality evidence). We also considered other alcohol-related behavioural outcomes, and at four or more months follow-up, we found no effects on drink-driving (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.10; moderate quality of evidence) or other alcohol-related risky behaviour (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.01; moderate quality evidence).Further analyses showed that there was no clear relationship between the duration of the MI intervention (in minutes) and effect size. Subgroup analyses revealed no clear subgroup effects for longer-term outcomes (four or more months) for assessment only versus alternative intervention controls; for university/college vs other settings; or for higher risk vs all/low risk participants.None of the studies reported harms related to MI. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review indicate that there are no substantive, meaningful benefits of MI interventions for preventing alcohol use, misuse or alcohol-related problems. Although we found some statistically significant effects, the effect sizes were too small, given the measurement scales used in the included studies, to be of relevance to policy or practice. Moreover, the statistically significant effects are not consistent for all misuse measures, and the quality of evidence is not strong, implying that any effects could be inflated by risk of bias.

Smoking Prevention for Students: Findings From a Three-Year Program of Integrated Harm Minimization School Drug Education.

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the impact of the Drug Education in Victorian Schools (DEVS) program on tobacco smoking. The program taught about licit and illicit drugs in an integrated manner over 2 years, with follow up in the third year. It focused on minimizing harm, rather than achieving abstinence, and employed participatory, critical-thinking and skill-based teaching methods. METHODS: A cluster-randomized, controlled trial of the program was conducted with a student cohort during years 8 (13 years), 9 (14 years), and 10 (15 years). Twenty-one schools were randomly allocated to the DEVS program (14 schools, n = 1163), or their usual drug education program (7 schools, n = 589). One intervention school withdrew in year two. RESULTS: There was a greater increase in the intervention students' knowledge about drugs, including tobacco, in all 3 years. Intervention students talked more with their parents about smoking at the end of the 3-year program. They recalled receiving more education on smoking in all 3 years. Their consumption of cigarettes had not increased to the same extent as controls at the end of the program. Their change in smoking harms, relative to controls, was positive in all 3 years. There was no difference between groups in the proportionate increase of smokers, or in attitudes towards smoking, at any time. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that a school program that teaches about all drugs in an integrated fashion, and focuses on minimizing harm, does not increase initiation into smoking, while providing strategies for reducing consumption and harm to those who choose to smoke.

Age differences in alcohol prototype perceptions and willingness to drink in U.K. adolescents.

Using the prototype willingness model (PWM) as a framework, this study sought to explore the relationship between prototype perceptions, willingness and alcohol consumption in a sample of adolescents in the United Kingdom (UK). Adolescents aged 11-17 were asked about their alcohol prototype perceptions, willingness to drink, intentions, alcohol consumption, drunkenness and harms using a cross-sectional online survey. Participants were recruited through opportunity sampling via schools and parents. The survey was completed by 178 respondents (51% female; 91 aged 11-15, 87 aged 16-17). Multivariate analysis revealed significant differences between participants aged 11-15 and 16-17 on PWM measures, even when experience with drinking was accounted for (p < .001). There were significant interactions (p < .001) between age and prototype perceptions; younger participants rated non-drinker prototypes as more favourable and more similar to the self than 16- and 17-year-old participants. Willingness and intentions interacted with age; both measures were similar in 16- and 17-year-olds, whereas younger participants scored significantly higher on willingness than intentions (p < .001). Three distinct scales of prototype descriptions were identified in principal components analysis. Characteristics related to sociability significantly predicted willingness to drink alcohol in the sample (p < .001). This study extends previous research by demonstrating that the PWM can provide a theoretical explanation of adolescent drinking in the UK. The results suggest that 11- to 15-year-olds may be the most suitable age for an intervention that targets alcohol prototypes, with a focus on sociability characteristics.

Social norms information for alcohol misuse in university and college students.

BACKGROUND: Drinking is influenced by youth perceptions of how their peers drink. These perceptions are often incorrect, overestimating peer drinking norms. If inaccurate perceptions can be corrected, young people may drink less. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether social norms interventions reduce alcohol-related negative consequences, alcohol misuse or alcohol consumption when compared with a control (ranging from assessment only/no intervention to other educational or psychosocial interventions) among university and college students. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched up to July 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO. The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) only to March 2008. Reference lists of included studies and review articles were manually searched. No restriction based on language or date was applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials that compared a social normative intervention versus no intervention, alcohol education leaflet or other 'non-normative feedback' alcohol intervention and reported on alcohol consumption or alcohol-related problems in university or college students. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Each outcome was analysed by mode of delivery: mailed normative feedback (MF); web/computer normative feedback (WF); individual face-to-face normative feedback (IFF); group face-to-face normative feedback (GFF); and normative marketing campaign (MC). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 70 studies (44,958 participants) were included in the review, and 63 studies (42,784 participants) in the meta-analyses. Overall, the risk of bias assessment showed that these studies provided moderate or low quality evidence.Outcomes at four or more months post-intervention were of particular interest to assess when effects were sustained beyond the immediate short term. We have reported pooled effects across delivery modes only for those analyses for which heterogeneity across delivery modes is not substantial (I(2) < 50%).Alcohol-related problems at four or more months: IFF standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.24 to -0.04 (participants = 2327; studies = 11; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 1.28 points in the 69-point alcohol problems scale score. No effects were found for WF or MF.Binge drinking at four or more months: results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02 (participants = 11,292; studies = 16; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to 2.7% fewer binge drinkers if 30-day prevalence is 43.9%.Drinking quantity at four or more months: results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.04 (participants = 21,169; studies = 32; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to a reduction of 0.9 drinks consumed each week, from a baseline of 13.7 drinks per week.Drinking frequency at four or more months: WF SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.04 (participants = 9929; studies = 10; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 0.17 drinking days/wk, from a baseline of 2.74 days/wk; IFF SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.10 (participants = 1464; studies = 8; moderate quality evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 0.32 drinking days/wk, from a baseline of 2.74 days/wk. No effects were found for GFF or MC.Estimated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at four or more months: peak BAC results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.00 (participants = 7198; studies = 11; low quality evidence), equivalent to a reduction in peak BAC from an average of 0.144% to 0.135%. No effects were found for typical BAC with IFF. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review indicate that no substantive meaningful benefits are associated with social norms interventions for prevention of alcohol misuse among college/university students. Although some significant effects were found, we interpret the effect sizes as too small, given the measurement scales used in the studies included in this review, to be of relevance for policy or practice. Moreover, the significant effects are not consistent for all misuse measures, heterogeneity was a problem in some analyses and bias cannot be discounted as a potential cause of these findings.

Social norms information for alcohol misuse in university and college students.

BACKGROUND: Drinking is influenced by youth (mis)perceptions of how their peers drink. If misperceptions can be corrected, young people may drink less. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether social norms interventions reduce alcohol-related negative consequences, alcohol misuse or alcohol consumption when compared with a control (ranging from assessment only/no intervention to other educational or psychosocial interventions) among university and college students. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched up to May 2014: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (only to March 2008). Reference lists of included studies and review articles were manually searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials that compared a social normative intervention versus no intervention, alcohol education leaflet or other 'non-normative feedback' alcohol intervention and reported on alcohol consumption or alcohol-related problems in university or college students. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Each outcome was analysed by mode of delivery: mailed normative feedback (MF); Web/computer normative feedback (WF); individual face-to-face normative feedback (IFF); group face-to-face normative feedback (GFF); and normative marketing campaign (MC). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 66 studies (43,125 participants) were included in the review, and 59 studies (40,951 participants) in the meta-analyses. Outcomes at 4+ months post intervention were of particular interest to assess when effects were sustained beyond the immediate short term. We have reported pooled effects across delivery modes only for those analyses for which heterogeneity across delivery modes is not substantial (I(2) < 50%). Alcohol-related problems at 4+ months: IFF standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.31 to -0.01 (participants = 1065; studies = 7; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 1.5 points in the 69-point alcohol problems scale score. No effects were found for WF or MF. Binge drinking at 4+ months: results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.02 (participants = 11,292; studies = 16; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to 2.7% fewer binge drinkers if 30-day prevalence is 43.9%. Drinking quantity at 4+ months: results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.12 to -0.05 (participants = 20,696; studies = 33; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to a reduction of 0.9 drinks consumed each week, from a baseline of 13.7 drinks per week. Drinking frequency at 4+ months: WF SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.05 (participants = 9456; studies = 9; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 0.19 drinking days/wk, from a baseline of 2.74 days/wk; IFF SMD -0.21, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.10 (participants = 1464; studies = 8; moderate quality of evidence), equivalent to a decrease of 0.32 drinking days/wk, from a baseline of 2.74 days/wk. No effects were found for GFF or MC. Estimated blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at 4+ months: peak BAC results pooled across delivery modes: SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.00 (participants = 7198; studies = 13; low quality of evidence), equivalent to a reduction in peak PAC from an average of 0.144% to 0.135%. No effects were found for typical BAC with IFF. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review indicate that no substantive meaningful benefits are associated with social norms interventions for prevention of alcohol misuse among college/university students. Although some significant effects were found, we interpret the effect sizes as too small, given the measurement scales used in the studies included in this review, to be of relevance for policy or practice. Moreover, the statistically significant effects are not consistent for all misuse measures, heterogeneity was a problem in some analyses and bias cannot be discounted as a potential cause of these findings.

Accuracy of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test for detecting problem drinking in 18-35 year-olds in England: method comparison study.

AIMS: To assess the accuracy of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) scores for problem drinking in males and females aged 18-35 in England. METHODS: A method comparison study with 420 primary care patients aged 18-35. Test measures were AUDIT and AUDIT-C. Reference standard measures were (a) Time-Line Follow-Back interview for hazardous drinking; World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview for (b) DSM-IV alcohol abuse, (c) DSM-IV alcohol dependence, (d) DSM-5 alcohol use disorders. RESULTS: Area under the curve (AUC) was (a) 0.79 (95% CI 0.73-0.85; males) and 0.84 (0.79-0.88; females); (b) 0.62 (0.54-0.72; males) and 0.65 (0.57-0.72; females); (c) 0.77 (0.65-0.87; males) and 0.76 (0.67-0.74; females); (d) 0.70 (0.60-0.78; males) and 0.73 (CI 0.67-0.78; females). Identification of threshold cut-point scores from the AUC was not straightforward. Youden J statistic optimal cut-point scores varied by 4-6 AUDIT scale points for each outcome according to whether sensitivity or specificity were prioritized. Using Bayes' Theorem, the post-test probability of drinking problems changed as AUDIT score increased, according to the slope of the probability curve. CONCLUSION: The full AUDIT scale showed good or very good accuracy for all outcome measures for males and females, except for alcohol abuse which had sufficient accuracy. In a screening scenario where sensitivity might be prioritized, the optimal cut-point is lower than established AUDIT cut-points of 8+ for men and 6+ for women. Bayes' Theorem to calculate individual probabilities for problem drinking offers an alternative to arbitrary cut-point threshold scores in screening and brief intervention programmes.

Motivational interviewing for alcohol misuse in young adults.

BACKGROUND: Globally, harmful use of alcohol results in approximately 2.5 million deaths each year. About 9% of these deaths are young people between the ages of 15 and 29 years (WHO 2011), mainly resulting from motor vehicle accidents, homicides, suicides and drownings. Hazardous drinking levels for men (consuming over 40 g/day alcohol on average, that is 5 units) double the risk of liver disease, raised blood pressure, some cancers and violent death (because some people who have this average alcohol consumption drink heavily on some days). For women, over 24 g/day average alcohol consumption (3 units) increases the risk for developing liver disease and breast cancer. Motivational interviewing (MI) is a popular technique for addressing excessive drinking in young adults but its effectiveness has not previously been examined in a Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: The specific objectives were:(1) to summarise current evidence about the effects of MI intended to address alcohol and alcohol-related problems in young adults, compared with no intervention or a different intervention, on alcohol consumption and other substantive outcome measures;(2) to investigate whether the effects of MI are modified by the length of the intervention. SEARCH METHODS: Relevant evidence was identified from (1) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (October 2013), (2) MEDLINE (January 1966 to October 2013), (3) EMBASE (January 1988 to October 2013), and (4) PsycINFO (1985 to October 2013). References of topic-related systematic reviews and the included studies were handsearched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised controlled trials of young people up to the age of 25 years in college and non-college settings comparing MIs with no intervention or a different intervention for prevention of alcohol misuse and alcohol-related problems were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 66 randomised trials (17,901 participants) were included four of which were cluster randomised. Studies with longer-term follow-up (four plus months) were of more interest when considering the sustainability of intervention effects.At four or more months follow-up, effects were found for the quantity of alcohol consumed (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.14; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to -0.08 or a reduction from 13.7 drinks/week to 12.2 drinks/week), moderate quality of evidence; frequency of alcohol consumption (SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.19 to -0.03 or a reduction in the number of days/week alcohol was consumed from 2.74 days to 2.57 days), moderate quality of evidence; and peak blood alcohol concentration (BAC) (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.23 to -0.05 or a decrease in peak BAC from 0.144% to 0.129%), moderate quality of evidence. A marginal effect was found for alcohol problems (SMD -0.08; 95% CI -0.15 to 0.00 or a reduction in an alcohol problems scale score from 8.91 to 8.18), low quality of evidence. No effects were found for binge drinking (SMD -0.05; 95% CI -0.12 to 0.01), moderate quality of evidence; or average BAC (SMD -0.08; 95% CI -0.22 to 0.06), moderate quality of evidence. We also considered other outcomes and at four or more months follow-up we found no effects on drink-driving (SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.31 to 0.09), moderate quality of evidence; or other alcohol-related risky behaviour (SMD -0.14; 95% CI -0.30 to 0.02), moderate quality of evidence.Further analyses showed that the type of control comparison (assessment only versus alternative intervention) did not predict the outcome in a clear or straightforward way; and there was no consistent relationship between the duration of the MI intervention (in minutes) and effect size. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review indicate that there are no substantive, meaningful benefits of MI interventions for the prevention of alcohol misuse. Although some significant effects were found, we interpret the effect sizes as being too small, given the measurement scales used in the studies included in the review, to be of relevance to policy or practice. Moreover, the statistically significant effects are not consistent for all misuse measures, heterogeneity was a problem in some analyses and bias cannot be discounted as a potential cause of these findings.

Can prevention classification be improved by considering the function of prevention?

Universal, selective and indicated forms of prevention have been adopted as improvements on previous notions of primary and secondary prevention. However, some conceptual confusion remains concerning the placing of environmental, community-based or mass media preventive interventions within this typology. It is suggested that a new dimension of functional types of prevention, namely environmental, developmental and informational prevention should be specified alongside the forms of prevention in a taxonomy matrix. The main advantage of this new taxonomy is that a matrix combining the form and function dimensions of prevention can be used to identify and map out prevention strategies, to consider where research evidence is present and where more is needed, and to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different categories and components of prevention for specific health and social issues. Such evaluations would provide empirical evidence as to whether the different categories of prevention are related to outcomes or processes of prevention in ways that suggest the value of the taxonomy for understanding and increasing the impact of prevention science. This new prevention taxonomy has been useful for conceptualising and planning prevention activities in a case study involving the Swedish National Institute for Public Health. Future work should assess (1) the robustness of this new taxonomy and (2) the theoretical and empirical basis for profiling prevention investments across the various forms and functions of prevention.

"Form ever follows function. This is the law". A prevention taxonomy based on a functional typology.

The universal, selective and indicated forms of prevention classification scheme has been recommended and largely adopted as an improvement on previous notions of primary and secondary prevention. However, there is no consensus or clarity about the placing of environmental, community-based or mass media preventive interventions within this scheme. It is suggested that a new dimension of functional types of prevention, namely environmental, developmental and informational prevention should be specified alongside the forms of prevention in a taxonomy matrix, and that this is an improvement on the current one-dimensional universal, selective and indicated scheme. Moreover, it is argued that a reappraisal of mainstream prevention theories leads to a prediction of the relative effectiveness of these functional types of prevention. This prediction specifies that environmental prevention is generally more effective than developmental prevention which, in turn, is generally more effective than informational prevention.

Effectiveness of organisational infrastructures to promote evidence-based nursing practice.

BACKGROUND: Nurses and midwives form the bulk of the clinical health workforce and play a central role in all health service delivery. There is potential to improve health care quality if nurses routinely use the best available evidence in their clinical practice. Since many of the factors perceived by nurses as barriers to the implementation of evidence-based practice (EBP) lie at the organisational level, it is of interest to devise and assess the effectiveness of organisational infrastructures designed to promote EBP among nurses. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of organisational infrastructures in promoting evidence-based nursing. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, BIREME, IBECS, NHS Economic Evaluations Database, Social Science Citation Index, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Indexes up to 9 March 2011.We developed a new search strategy for this update as the strategy published in 2003 omitted key terms. Additional search methods included: screening reference lists of relevant studies, contacting authors of relevant papers regarding any further published or unpublished work, and searching websites of selected research groups and organisations.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, interrupted times series (ITSs) and controlled before and after studies of an entire or identified component of an organisational infrastructure intervention aimed at promoting EBP in nursing. The participants were all healthcare organisations comprising nurses, midwives and health visitors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For the ITS analysis, we reported the change in the slopes of the regression lines, and the change in the level effect of the outcome at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included one study from the USA (re-analysed as an ITS) involving one hospital and an unknown number of nurses and patients. The study evaluated the effects of a standardised evidence-based nursing procedure on nursing care for patients at risk of developing healthcare-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs). If a patient's admission Braden score was below or equal to 18 (i.e. indicating a high risk of developing pressure ulcers), nurses were authorised to initiate a pressure ulcer prevention bundle (i.e. a set of evidence-based clinical interventions) without waiting for a physician order. Re-analysis of data as a time series showed that against a background trend of decreasing HAPU rates, if that trend was assumed to be real, there was no evidence of an intervention effect at three months (mean rate per quarter 0.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7 to 3.3; P = 0.457). Given the small percentages post intervention it was not statistically possible to extrapolate effects beyond three months. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite extensive searching of published and unpublished research we identified only one low-quality study; we excluded many studies due to non-eligible study design. If policy-makers and healthcare organisations wish to promote evidence-based nursing successfully at an organisational level, they must ensure the funding and conduct of well-designed studies to generate evidence to guide policy.

Effectiveness of the Strengthening Families Programme 10-14 in Poland for the prevention of alcohol and drug misuse: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and other drug use and misuse is a significant problem amongst Polish youth. The SFP10-14 is a family-based prevention intervention that has positive results in US trials, but questions remain about the generalizability of these results to other countries and settings. METHODS/DESIGN: A cluster randomized controlled trial in community settings across Poland. Communities will be randomized to a SFP10-14 trial arm or to a control arm. Recruitment and consent of families, and delivery of the SFP10-14, will be undertaken by community workers. The primary outcomes are alcohol and other drug use and misuse. Secondary (or intermediate) outcomes include parenting practices, parent-child relations, and child problem behaviour. Interview-based questionnaires will be administered at baseline, 12 and 24 months. DISCUSSION: The trial will provide information about the effectiveness of the SFP10-14 in Poland. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN89673828.

Motivational Interviewing-based interventions for reducing substance misuse and increasing treatment engagement, retention, and completion in the homeless populations of high-income countries: An equity-focused systematic review and narrative synthesis.

AIM: Rising mortality and disease prevalence in the homeless have been largely attributed to addiction disorders. This review aimed to assess whether Motivational Interviewing (MI) is effective in changing substance misuse behaviours in the homeless, specifically: 1. reducing substance misuse; 2. increasing addiction treatment linkage; and 3. whether MI effectiveness varied according to the different levels of social disadvantage within homeless populations. METHOD: Electronic databases and other sources were searched (to July 2021) for relevant randomized trials and comparative studies. Risk of bias in included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. A Narrative Synthesis framework was applied to included studies. Moderator variables subgroup analyses were planned a priori. PROSPERO study protocol registration: CRD42019134312 RESULTS: The searches found 1885 records; after application of inclusion criteria n = 11 studies from 30 articles were included in the review, all from the United States. There was a paucity of research regarding MI effectiveness for substance misuse outcomes in homeless populations, with a focus on short-term rather than long-term impacts. Risk of bias was generally low but was high for detection bias in most studies. MI appeared to be more effective overall amongst adult homeless persons, yielding consistently small effects, and alcohol use behaviours seemed to be more amenable to change as a result of MI/MET (Motivational Enhancement Therapy) interventions than drug use ones. Limited evidence with high risk of bias indicated that social gradient may attenuate MI effectiveness within the young homeless population, with no impact in the most disadvantaged. CONCLUSIONS: The review's mixed findings discourage the use of MI as a stand-alone substance use intervention in homeless populations. Although the review findings did not identify MI effectiveness for substance use according to the external level of social disadvantage faced by homeless persons, this should be a focus for further research.

Global comparisons of responses to alcohol health information labels: A cross sectional study of people who drink alcohol from 29 countries.

AIMS: The aim of this paper was to explore responses to alcohol health information labels from a cross sectional survey of people who drink alcohol from 29 countries. DESIGN: This paper draws on findings from the Global Drug Survey (GDS) - an annual cross sectional online survey. PARTICIPANTS: 75,969 (64.3% male) respondents from 29 countries were included in the study. MEASURES: Respondents were shown seven health information labels (topics were heart disease, liver, cancer, calories, violence, taking two days off and myth of benefits of moderate drinking). They were asked if the information was new, believable, personally relevant, and if it would change their drinking. A multivariate multilevel Bayesian logistic regression model was used to estimate predicted probabilities for newness, believability, relevance and if messages would change drinking behaviour by country and information label. FINDINGS: Predicted probabilities showed substantial variability in responses across countries. Respondents from Colombia, Brazil and Mexico were more likely to consider drinking less as well as have lower levels of previous awareness. Those from Denmark and Switzerland were not as likely to say the labels would make them consider drinking less. The cancer message was consistently the newest and most likely to make people consider drinking less across countries. CONCLUSIONS: Country differences in responses to messages can be used to create targeted harm reduction measures as well as inform what should be on labels. The provision of such health information on alcohol product labels may play a role in raising awareness of the risk of drinking. Global comparisons of responses to alcohol health information labels: a cross sectional study of people who drink alcohol from 29 countries.

Universal multi-component prevention programs for alcohol misuse in young people.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol misuse in young people is a cause of concern for health services, policy makers, prevention workers, and criminal justice system, youth workers, teachers, and parents. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of universal multi-component prevention programs in preventing alcohol misuse in school-aged children up to 18 years of age. To update a part of a previously published Cochrane systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant evidence (up to 2002) was selected from the previous Cochrane review. Later studies, to July 2010, were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Project CORK, and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials evaluating universal multi-component prevention programs (intervention delivered in more than one setting) and reporting outcomes for alcohol use in students 18 years of age or younger were included. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full text of identified records. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted relevant data independently using an a priori defined extraction form. Risk of bias was assessed. MAIN RESULTS: 20 parallel-group trials were included. The reporting quality of trials was poor, only 25% and 5% of them reporting adequate method of randomisation and program allocation concealment, respectively. Incomplete data was adequately addressed in about half of the trials and this information was unclear for about 20% of the trials. Due to extensive heterogeneity across interventions, populations, and outcomes, the results were summarized only qualitatively.12 of the 20 trials showed some evidence of effectiveness compared to a control or other intervention group, with persistence of effects ranging from 3 months to 3 years. Of the remaining 8 trials, one trial reported significant effects using one-tailed tests and 7 trials reported no significant effects of the multi-component interventions for reducing alcohol misuse.Assessment of the additional benefit of multiple versus single component interventions was possible in 7 trials with multiple arms. Only one of the 7 trials clearly showed a benefit of components delivered in more than one setting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that multi-component interventions for alcohol misuse prevention in young people can be effective. However, there is little evidence that interventions with multiple components are more effective than interventions with single components.

Universal family-based prevention programs for alcohol misuse in young people.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol misuse in young people is a cause of concern for health services, policy makers, prevention workers, and criminal justice system, youth workers, teachers, and parents. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of universal family-based prevention programs in preventing alcohol misuse in school-aged children up to 18 years of age. To update a part of a previously published Cochrane systematic review. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant evidence (up to 2002) was selected from the previous Cochrane review. Later studies, to July 2010, were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Project CORK, and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials evaluating universal family-based prevention programs and reporting outcomes for alcohol use in students 18 years of age or younger were included. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full text of identified records. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted relevant data independently using an a priori defined extraction form. Risk of bias was assessed. MAIN RESULTS: 12 parallel-group trials were included. The reporting quality of trials was poor, only 20% of them reporting adequate method of randomisation and program allocation concealment. Incomplete data was adequately addressed in about half of the trials and this information was unclear for about 30% of the trials. Due to extensive heterogeneity across interventions, populations, and outcomes, the results were summarized only qualitatively.9 of the 12 trials showed some evidence of effectiveness compared to a control or other intervention group, with persistence of effects over the medium and longer-term. Four of these effective interventions were gender-specific, focusing on young females. One study with a small sample size showed positive effects that were not statistically significant, and two studies with larger sample sizes reported no significant effects of the family-based intervention for reducing alcohol misuse. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, in this Cochrane systematic review we found that that the effects of family-based prevention interventions are small but generally consistent and also persistent into the medium- to longer-term.

Universal school-based prevention programs for alcohol misuse in young people.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol misuse in young people is cause of concern for health services, policy makers, prevention workers, criminal justice system, youth workers, teachers, parents. This is one of three reviews examining the effectiveness of (1) school-based, (2) family-based, and (3) multi-component prevention programs. OBJECTIVES: To review evidence on the effectiveness of universal school-based prevention programs in preventing alcohol misuse in school-aged children up to 18 years of age. SEARCH STRATEGY: Relevant evidence (up to 2002) was selected from the previous Cochrane review. Later studies, to July 2010, were identified from MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Project CORK, and PsycINFO. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials evaluating universal school-based prevention programs and reporting outcomes for alcohol use in students 18 years of age or younger were included. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full text of identified records. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers extracted relevant data independently using an a priori defined extraction form. Risk of bias was assessed. MAIN RESULTS: 53 trials were included, most of which were cluster-randomised. The reporting quality of trials was poor, only 3.8% of them reporting adequate method of randomisation and program allocation concealment. Incomplete data was adequately addressed in 23% of the trials. Due to extensive heterogeneity across interventions, populations, and outcomes, the results were summarized only qualitatively.Six of the 11 trials evaluating alcohol-specific interventions showed some evidence of effectiveness compared to a standard curriculum. In 14 of the 39 trials evaluating generic interventions, the program interventions demonstrated significantly greater reductions in alcohol use either through a main or subgroup effect. Gender, baseline alcohol use, and ethnicity modified the effects of interventions. Results from the remaining 3 trials with interventions targeting cannabis, alcohol, and/or tobacco were inconsistent. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review identified studies that showed no effects of preventive interventions, as well as studies that demonstrated statistically significant effects. There was no easily discernible pattern in characteristics that would distinguish trials with positive results from those with no effects. Most commonly observed positive effects across programs were for drunkenness and binge drinking. Current evidence suggests that certain generic psychosocial and developmental prevention programs can be effective and could be considered as policy and practice options. These include the Life Skills Training Program, the Unplugged program, and the Good Behaviour Game. A stronger focus of future research on intervention program content and delivery context is warranted.