[Evidence-based Alcohol Prevention-what Does Effectiveness Research Recommend? : Results of the 2020 BZgA Review of Reviews on Addiction Prevention]

Overview

Journal Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz

Publisher Springer

Specialty Public Health

Date 2021 May 31

PMID 34057539

Citations 1

Authors

Anneke Buhler

Johannes Thrul

Elena Gomes de Matos

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: A substantial group of adolescents and young adults engage in risky alcohol use and there is a need for alcohol prevention. The 2020 BZgA review of reviews on addiction prevention provides the best available scientific knowledge on effectiveness of prevention measures for young people.

Research Question: Which approaches show preventive effects on alcohol use in different prevention settings?

Methods: A systematic literature search in June 2017 in seven international databases resulted in 28,949 hits. Inclusion criteria were a review or meta-analysis study type, a 2012-2017 publication date, a universal or selective target group, age up to 25 years, and a target behavior of alcohol consumption. Exclusion criteria were target group people with substance use disorders and target behavior risk factors. The three authors performed a systematic content analysis of 34 alcohol-related publications and assessed their methodology using AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). Conclusions and recommendations were framed by consensus among all authors.

Results: Based on a total number of 53 conclusions on the effectiveness of alcohol prevention approaches depending on setting (family, school, college, media, health care, and community) and target group, it can be recommended - among other things - to implement family programs and parenting training, behavioral programs targeting specific personal and social skills, brief interventions with feedback, and mentoring programs. No recent reviews that investigated the effectiveness of alcohol policies at the community or national level could be identified.

Conclusions: Behavioral alcohol prevention is effective. It is recommended to address specific age and target groups in different settings by using specific interventions. Consensus is needed with regard to what kind of evidence proves effectiveness of environmental prevention measures.

Citing Articles

[Alcohol prevention in municipalities: structures, strategies and challenges].

Prasser T, Hallmann H, Goecke M Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2021; 64(6):679-687.

PMID: 34023929 PMC: 8249296. DOI: 10.1007/s00103-021-03334-9.

References

Ganz T, Braun M, Laging M, Schermelleh-Engel K, Michalak J, Heidenreich T . Effects of a stand-alone web-based electronic screening and brief intervention targeting alcohol use in university students of legal drinking age: A randomized controlled trial. Addict Behav. 2017; 77:81-88. DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.09.017. View

Georgie J M, Sean H, Deborah M C, Matthew H, Rona C . Peer-led interventions to prevent tobacco, alcohol and/or drug use among young people aged 11-21 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Addiction. 2015; 111(3):391-407. PMC: 4833174. DOI: 10.1111/add.13224. View

Sussman S, Arriaza B, Grigsby T . Alcohol, tobacco, and other drug misuse prevention and cessation programming for alternative high school youth: a review. J Sch Health. 2014; 84(11):748-58. DOI: 10.1111/josh.12200. View

DeJong W, Blanchette J . Case closed: research evidence on the positive public health impact of the age 21 minimum legal drinking age in the United States. J Stud Alcohol Drugs Suppl. 2014; (17):108-15. DOI: 10.15288/jsads.2014.s17.108. View

Carney T, Myers B, Louw J, Okwundu C . Brief school-based interventions and behavioural outcomes for substance-using adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; (1):CD008969. PMC: 7119449. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008969.pub3. View

Sargent J, Babor T . The Relationship Between Exposure to Alcohol Marketing and Underage Drinking Is Causal. J Stud Alcohol Drugs Suppl. 2020; (19):113-124. PMC: 7063998. DOI: 10.15288/jsads.2020.s19.113. View

Hennessy E, Tanner-Smith E . Effectiveness of brief school-based interventions for adolescents: a meta-analysis of alcohol use prevention programs. Prev Sci. 2014; 16(3):463-74. PMC: 4636019. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-014-0512-0. View

Morgenstern M, Isensee B, Sargent J, Hanewinkel R . Attitudes as mediators of the longitudinal association between alcohol advertising and youth drinking. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2011; 165(7):610-6. DOI: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.12. View

Foxcroft D, Moreira M, Almeida Santimano N, Smith L . Social norms information for alcohol misuse in university and college students. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; (12):CD006748. PMC: 8750744. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006748.pub4. View

10.

Arnaud N, Diestelkamp S, Wartberg L, Sack P, Daubmann A, Thomasius R . Short- to Midterm Effectiveness of a Brief Motivational Intervention to Reduce Alcohol Use and Related Problems for Alcohol Intoxicated Children and Adolescents in Pediatric Emergency Departments: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2016; 24(2):186-200. DOI: 10.1111/acem.13126. View

11.

Foxcroft D, Coombes L, Wood S, Allen D, Almeida Santimano N, Moreira M . Motivational interviewing for the prevention of alcohol misuse in young adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; 7:CD007025. PMC: 6457858. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007025.pub4. View

12.

Scholes-Balog K, Heerde J, Hemphill S . Alcohol warning labels: unlikely to affect alcohol-related beliefs and behaviours in adolescents. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2012; 36(6):524-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.2012.00934.x. View

13.

Huh D, Mun E, Larimer M, White H, Ray A, Rhew I . Brief motivational interventions for college student drinking may not be as powerful as we think: an individual participant-level data meta-analysis. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015; 39(5):919-31. PMC: 4502982. DOI: 10.1111/acer.12714. View

14.

Burton R, Henn C, Lavoie D, OConnor R, Perkins C, Sweeney K . A rapid evidence review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alcohol control policies: an English perspective. Lancet. 2016; 389(10078):1558-1580. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32420-5. View

15.

Fachini A, Aliane P, Martinez E, Furtado E . Efficacy of brief alcohol screening intervention for college students (BASICS): a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2012; 7:40. PMC: 3499225. DOI: 10.1186/1747-597X-7-40. View

16.

Tanner-Smith E, Lipsey M . Brief alcohol interventions for adolescents and young adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2014; 51:1-18. PMC: 4346408. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsat.2014.09.001. View

17.

Kohler S, Hofmann A . Can motivational interviewing in emergency care reduce alcohol consumption in young people? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Alcohol Alcohol. 2015; 50(2):107-17. DOI: 10.1093/alcalc/agu098. View

18.

Melendez-Torres G, Dickson K, Fletcher A, Thomas J, Hinds K, Campbell R . Positive youth development programmes to reduce substance use in young people: Systematic review. Int J Drug Policy. 2016; 36:95-103. DOI: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2016.01.007. View

19.

Paschall M, Lipperman-Kreda S, Grube J . Effects of the local alcohol environment on adolescents' drinking behaviors and beliefs. Addiction. 2013; 109(3):407-16. PMC: 3945163. DOI: 10.1111/add.12397. View

20.

Kuntsche E, Nic Gabhainn S, Roberts C, Windlin B, Vieno A, Bendtsen P . Drinking motives and links to alcohol use in 13 European countries. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2014; 75(3):428-37. DOI: 10.15288/jsad.2014.75.428. View