Brief alcohol intervention for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in secondary schools: the SIPS JR-HIGH RCT

E. Giles, G. McGeechan, S. Coulton, P. Deluca, C. Drummond, D. Howel, E. Kaner, E. McColl, R. McGovern, S. Scott, E. Stamp, H. Sumnall, L. Todd, L. Vale, V. Albani, S. Boniface, Jennifer Ferguson, E. Gilvarry, N. Hendrie, N. Howe, H. Mossop, A. Ramsay, G. Stanley, D. Newbury-Birch
{"title":"Brief alcohol intervention for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in secondary schools: the SIPS JR-HIGH RCT","authors":"E. Giles, G. McGeechan, S. Coulton, P. Deluca, C. Drummond, D. Howel, E. Kaner, E. McColl, R. McGovern, S. Scott, E. Stamp, H. Sumnall, L. Todd, L. Vale, V. Albani, S. Boniface, Jennifer Ferguson, E. Gilvarry, N. Hendrie, N. Howe, H. Mossop, A. Ramsay, G. Stanley, D. Newbury-Birch","doi":"10.3310/PHR07090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Adverse effects from young people’s alcohol consumption manifest in a range of physical and psychosocial factors, including neurological issues, cognitive impairment and risk-taking behaviours. The SIPS JR-HIGH pilot trial showed alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) to be acceptable to young people and schools in the north-east of England.\n \n \n \n To conduct a two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in the school setting, to monitor the fidelity of ASBI and to explore the barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation with staff, young people and parents.\n \n \n \n A baseline survey with a 12-month follow-up. Interviews with 30 school staff, 21 learning mentors and nine teachers, and 33 young people and two parents.\n \n \n \n Thirty state schools in four areas of England: north-east, north-west, Kent and London.\n \n \n \n Year 10 school pupils who consented to the study (aged 14–15 years, recruited between November 2015 and June 2016), school-based staff and parents of the young people who took part in the study.\n \n \n \n Young people who screened positively on a single alcohol screening question and consented were randomised to the intervention or control arm (blinded). The intervention was a 30-minute one-to-one structured brief intervention with a trained learning mentor and an alcohol leaflet. The control group received a healthy lifestyle leaflet (no alcohol information).\n \n \n \n The primary outcome measure was total alcohol consumed in the last 28 days. Secondary outcomes related to risky drinking, general psychological health, sexual risk-taking, energy drink consumption, age of first smoking, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-years, service utilisation and demographic information.\n \n \n \n A total of 4523 young people completed the baseline survey, with 1064 screening positively (24%) and 443 being eligible to take part in the trial. Of those 443, 233 (53%) were randomised to the control arm and 210 were randomised to the intervention arm. Of the 443, 374 (84%) were successfully followed up at 12 months (intervention, n = 178; control, n = 196). The results were that the intervention showed no evidence of benefit for any alcohol-related measure when compared with the control arm. At 12 months we found a reduction from 61.9% to 43.3% using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test cut-off point of 8 and cut-off point of 4 (69.0% to 60.7%). These results were not significant. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average net cost saving of the brief intervention was £2865 (95% confidence interval –£11,272 to £2707) per year compared with usual practice, with the intervention showing a 76% probability of being cost saving compared with usual practice. The interview findings showed that school was an acceptable setting to carry out ASBI among staff and young people.\n \n \n \n Recruitment of parents to take part in interviews was poor. Only 18 ASBI sessions were recorded, making it difficult to assess internal validity.\n \n \n \n Although the intervention was ineffective in reducing risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years, it was well received by the young people and school staff who participated.\n \n \n \n Uniform reporting of the outcomes used for ASBI would generate more robust conclusions on the effectiveness of ASBI in the future. Pilot feasibility studies should include more than one geographical area. Future work on involving parents is needed.\n \n \n \n Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45691494.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32306,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/PHR07090","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9

Abstract

Adverse effects from young people’s alcohol consumption manifest in a range of physical and psychosocial factors, including neurological issues, cognitive impairment and risk-taking behaviours. The SIPS JR-HIGH pilot trial showed alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) to be acceptable to young people and schools in the north-east of England. To conduct a two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in the school setting, to monitor the fidelity of ASBI and to explore the barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation with staff, young people and parents. A baseline survey with a 12-month follow-up. Interviews with 30 school staff, 21 learning mentors and nine teachers, and 33 young people and two parents. Thirty state schools in four areas of England: north-east, north-west, Kent and London. Year 10 school pupils who consented to the study (aged 14–15 years, recruited between November 2015 and June 2016), school-based staff and parents of the young people who took part in the study. Young people who screened positively on a single alcohol screening question and consented were randomised to the intervention or control arm (blinded). The intervention was a 30-minute one-to-one structured brief intervention with a trained learning mentor and an alcohol leaflet. The control group received a healthy lifestyle leaflet (no alcohol information). The primary outcome measure was total alcohol consumed in the last 28 days. Secondary outcomes related to risky drinking, general psychological health, sexual risk-taking, energy drink consumption, age of first smoking, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-years, service utilisation and demographic information. A total of 4523 young people completed the baseline survey, with 1064 screening positively (24%) and 443 being eligible to take part in the trial. Of those 443, 233 (53%) were randomised to the control arm and 210 were randomised to the intervention arm. Of the 443, 374 (84%) were successfully followed up at 12 months (intervention, n = 178; control, n = 196). The results were that the intervention showed no evidence of benefit for any alcohol-related measure when compared with the control arm. At 12 months we found a reduction from 61.9% to 43.3% using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test cut-off point of 8 and cut-off point of 4 (69.0% to 60.7%). These results were not significant. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average net cost saving of the brief intervention was £2865 (95% confidence interval –£11,272 to £2707) per year compared with usual practice, with the intervention showing a 76% probability of being cost saving compared with usual practice. The interview findings showed that school was an acceptable setting to carry out ASBI among staff and young people. Recruitment of parents to take part in interviews was poor. Only 18 ASBI sessions were recorded, making it difficult to assess internal validity. Although the intervention was ineffective in reducing risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years, it was well received by the young people and school staff who participated. Uniform reporting of the outcomes used for ASBI would generate more robust conclusions on the effectiveness of ASBI in the future. Pilot feasibility studies should include more than one geographical area. Future work on involving parents is needed. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45691494. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
SIPS JR-HIGH RCT对中学14-15岁年轻人危险饮酒的简短酒精干预
年轻人饮酒的不良影响表现在一系列身体和心理社会因素中,包括神经问题、认知障碍和冒险行为。SIPS JR-HIGH试点试验表明,英格兰东北部的年轻人和学校可以接受酒精筛查和短暂干预(ASBI)。进行一项两臂、单独随机对照试验,评估ASBI在学校环境中对14-15岁年轻人危险饮酒的有效性和成本效益,监测ASBI的忠诚度,并探索与工作人员、年轻人和家长实施ASBI的障碍和促进因素。一项为期12个月的基线调查。采访了30名学校工作人员、21名学习导师和9名教师,以及33名年轻人和两名家长。英格兰东北部、西北部、肯特和伦敦四个地区的30所州立学校。同意该研究的10年级学生(年龄14-15岁,2015年11月至2016年6月招募)、学校工作人员和参与该研究的年轻人的家长。对一个酒精筛查问题进行阳性筛查并同意的年轻人被随机分配到干预组或对照组(盲法)。干预是一项30分钟的一对一结构化简短干预,由受过培训的学习导师和酒精传单进行。对照组收到健康生活方式传单(无酒精信息)。主要的结果指标是过去28天内的总饮酒量。次要结果与危险饮酒、总体心理健康、性冒险、能量饮料消费、首次吸烟年龄、生活质量、质量调整后的寿命、服务利用率和人口统计信息有关。共有4523名年轻人完成了基线调查,其中1064人筛查呈阳性(24%),443人有资格参加试验。在这443人中,233人(53%)被随机分配到对照组,210人被随机分配给干预组。在443例患者中,374例(84%)在12个月时成功随访(干预 = 178;控制,n = 196)。结果是,与对照组相比,干预措施没有显示出任何与酒精相关的措施的益处。在12个月时,我们发现酒精使用障碍识别测试的截止点为8,截止点为4(69.0%至60.7%),从61.9%降至43.3%。这些结果并不显著。成本效益分析显示,与常规做法相比,短期干预的平均净成本每年节省2865英镑(95%置信区间为11272英镑至2707英镑),与常规惯例相比,干预节省成本的可能性为76%。访谈结果显示,学校是员工和年轻人可以接受的实施ASBI的环境。招募家长参加面试的情况很差。只记录了18次ASBI会议,因此很难评估内部有效性。尽管干预措施在减少14-15岁年轻人的危险饮酒方面无效,但它受到了参与的年轻人和学校工作人员的好评。统一报告《企业会计准则》使用的结果将在未来对《企业会计条例》的有效性得出更有力的结论。试点可行性研究应包括一个以上的地理区域。未来需要让家长参与进来。当前对照试验ISRCTN45691494。该项目由国家卫生研究所公共卫生研究计划资助,并将在《公共卫生研究》上全文发表;第7卷第9期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
46 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信