PRACTICES AND INTERVENTIONS FOR PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL USE AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE IN EUROPE

408 views

Published on

Prezentācija konferencē "Bērnu sociāla iekļaušana kā antisociālas uzvedības novēršanas metode".

Konference tika rīkota projekta "Bērnu antisociālās uzvedības mazināšana: agrīnās prevencijas modeļi” ietvaros.
Projektu finansiāli atbalsta Islande, Lihtenšteina un Norvēģija NVO projektu programmas ietvaros.

NVO projektu programmu tiek finansēta ar Eiropas Ekonomikas zonas finanšu instrumenta un Latvijas valsts finansiālu atbalstu.

Plašāka informācija: ,
http://www.providus.lv/public/27880.html
www.sif.lv
www.eeagrants.org
www.eeagrants.lv

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

PRACTICES AND INTERVENTIONS FOR PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL USE AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE IN EUROPE

  1. 1. PRACTICES AND INTERVENTIONS FOR PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL USE AMONG YOUNG PEOPLE IN EUROPE Presented by: Anna Markina University of Tartu
  2. 2. Our task: To identify and select programs and interventions that have been evaluated and of which the effectiveness has been proved, with the intent of enabling politicians and policy-makers to discern which interventions are effective or promising in the field of prevention.
  3. 3. Definitions: Intervention is a goal-directed and systematic approach toward the prevention of alcohol carried out by various providers.
  4. 4. Definitions: Best practices in health promotion: “those sets of processes and actions that are consistent with health promotion values, theories, evidence and understanding of the environment, that are most likely to prevent alcohol use among juveniles.” Kahan & Goodstadt (2001)
  5. 5. Classification of prevention programs (Mrazek & Haggerty 1994): •Universal •Selective •Indicated
  6. 6. Focusing on the contexts and actors involved: •Individual; •Family; •School; •Community; •Multi-component.
  7. 7. Methodology • Step 1: partners from 25 European countries were required to make an inventory of meso (school and community) and micro (family and individual) initiatives in the field of prevention of alcohol use among juveniles in their countries.
  8. 8. Methodology • Step 2: we asked national experts to propose two (or more, if available) “good” programs or interventions in their country as “best practice models” according to their competence and experience to be evaluated.
  9. 9. Methodology • Step 3: three teams of the AAAPrevent project (Italian, Estonian and Dutch team) independently evaluated these programs selected by national experts.
  10. 10. Inclusion criteria for the best practices: • The interventions’ focus is primary and/or secondary level prevention; • The interventions have been implemented and evaluated with positive outcomes and are described in published literature; • Interventions show evidence of effectiveness in eliciting desired changes;
  11. 11. Inclusion criteria for the best practices: • The intervention addresses alcohol use prevention among children under the age of 18; • The intervention addresses one or more of the following domains: individual, school, family, community, multi-component.
  12. 12. Clustering of countries: Central Europe: Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria and Switzerland; Nordic: Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland; Mediterranean: France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Cyprus; Eastern European: Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Bosnia, Armenia and Russia.
  13. 13. Evaluation of programs: 1 Theoretical background 1 (meets the criteria) 0 (does not meet the criteria) 2 Implementation 1 (meets the criteria) 0 (does not meet the criteria) 3 Outcome 1 (meets the criteria) 0 (does not meet the criteria)
  14. 14. Overall score 0..3 • • • • 3 2 1 0 (meets our criteria) (moderately meets our criteria) (minimally meets our criteria) (does not meet the criteria)
  15. 15. 391 programs among 24 European countries were evaluated
  16. 16. Individual level Program Risk factor/s targeted* Overall score Country Skoll (Self-control training) Individual, peers 3 Germany Supra-f Individual, peers 3 Switzerland
  17. 17. Family level Program Strengthening Families Program (SFP) Risk factor/s Overall targeted* score Individual, family, peers 2 Country Ireland Slovenia Triple P family 3 The Netherlands Örebro preventionsprogram (ÖPP) Family 3 Norway Dedalo Family Sweden 2 Spain
  18. 18. School level Program Risk factor/s targeted* Overall score Country Unplugged Individual, family, peers 3 To prevent is to live Individual, peers, school 2 Belgium, Italy, Lithuania, Slovenia Spain Drug-Reason-Impact Individual, peers, school 3 Czech R. Life Skills and Knowledge Individual, school, peers 2 Hungary PDD-FM 3 Poland Kurzintervention Individual, peers, school, family Individual, peers 3 Swizerland I am OK when I say NO WAY Individual, peers 3 Denmark PAS Individual, family, school 3 The Netherlands Social Skills Training Individual, family, peers 2 Estonia
  19. 19. Community level Program Risk factor/s targeted* Overall score Country Prague 6 District Individual, peers, school, family 3 Czech R. HaLT Individual, family, peers, neighbourhood 3 Germany Don’t start too early Individual, family, peers 2 Belgium Local Alcohol Policy (PAKKA) Peers, neighbourhood 3 Finland Responsible alcohol handling Peers, neighbourhood 3 Norway STADs Responsible Beverage Service Peers, neighbourhood 3 Sweden
  20. 20. Multi-component Program Risk factor/s targeted* Overall score Country PES´P Andar (Feet for Walking) Individual, peers 2 Portugal Searching for Family Treasure Individual, family 2 ODLOT Individual, family, peers, neighbourhood 2 Poland Drug Policy at School Individual, school, peers 3 Belgium A cool world individual 2 ADSUME and EI individual 2 Finland Snowball Individual, peers 2 Lithuania
  21. 21. Conclusions • The main aims the prevention are the delay of onset, consumption decrease and harm reduction. • Prevention in school level is considered most frequently effective compared to other domains. • It is therefore important to define school as an educative alcohol-free environment.
  22. 22. Conclusions • Interaction between families (parents) and the youth seems to be a successful approach. • Community organization can play an important role in alcohol prevention. • It is recommended that local communities should be more actively integrated in the alcohol prevention.
  23. 23. Conclusions • There is a lack of evidence in evaluation, so there is a need for increasing scientific research in the area of alcohol prevention methods. • Limitation of funding for developing new alcohol prevention programs. • Importance of networking in application of the programs.
  24. 24. Thank you for your attention! http://www.aaaprevent.eu/strategi es

×