The long‐term effectiveness of a selective, personality‐targeted prevention program in reducing alcohol use and related harms: a cluster randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study investigated the long-term effectiveness of Preventure, a selective personality-targeted prevention program, in reducing the uptake of alcohol, harmful use of alcohol, and alcohol-related harms over a 3-year period. METHODS: A cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted to assess the effectiveness of Preventure. Schools were block randomized to one of two groups: the Preventure group (n = 7 schools) and the Control group (n = 7 schools). Only students screening as high-risk on one of four personality profiles (anxiety sensitivity, negative thinking, impulsivity, and sensation seeking) were included in the analysis. All students were assessed at five time points over a 3-year period: baseline; immediately after the intervention; and 12, 24, and 36 months after baseline. Students were assessed on frequency of drinking, binge drinking, and alcohol-related harms. Two-part latent growth models were used to analyze intervention effects, which included all students with data available at each time point. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612000026820; www.anzctr.org.au). RESULTS: A total of 438 high-risk adolescents (mean age, 13.4 years; SD = 0.47) from 14 Australian schools were recruited to the study and completed baseline assessments. Relative to high-risk Control students, high-risk Preventure students displayed significantly reduced growth in their likelihood to consume alcohol [b = -0.225 (0.061); p < .001], to binge drink [b = -0.305 (.096); p = 0.001], and to experience alcohol-related harms [b = -0.255 (0.096); p = .008] over 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study support the use of selective personality-targeted preventive interventions in reducing the uptake of alcohol, alcohol misuse, and related harms over the long term. This trial is the first to demonstrate the effects of a selective alcohol prevention program over a 3-year period and the first to demonstrate the effects of a selective preventive intervention in Australia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".