MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040521116 · doi:10.1111/add.15178

The long‐term effectiveness of universal, selective and combined prevention for alcohol use during adolescence: 36‐month outcomes from a cluster randomized controlled trial

2020· article· en· W3040521116 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Slade, Nicola C. Newton, Marius Mather, Emma Barrett, Katrina E. Champion, Lexine Stapinski, Patricia Conrod, Maree Teesson

Bibliographic record

VenueAddiction · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsBinge drinkingMedicineRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionCluster randomised controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Poison controlEnvironmental healthPhysical therapySuicide preventionPsychiatrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To compare the long-term universal outcomes of the Climate Schools programme, the selective preventure programme and their combined implementation to standard substance use education in reducing the uptake of alcohol use, engagement in binge drinking and alcohol-related harms over a 3-year period. DESIGN: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Substance use prevention programmes delivered in Australian secondary schools. Students from 26 Australian secondary schools (n = 2190), mean age at baseline 13.3 years (standard deviation = 0.48), 57.4% male. Schools were recruited between September 2011 and February 2012. INTERVENTIONS: Schools were block-randomized to one of four groups: universal prevention (climate; 12 × 40-minute lessons); selective prevention (preventure; 2 × 90-minute sessions); combined prevention (climate and preventure; CAP); or health education as usual (control). The climate intervention delivered 12 × 40-minute lessons aimed at reducing alcohol and cannabis use and related harms. The preventure intervention delivered 2 × 90-minute group sessions to high-risk students. The CAP group implemented the climate programme to the entire year group and the preventure programme to the high-risk students. MEASUREMENTS: Participants were all consenting 8th grade students (in 2012) assessed at baseline, post-intervention (6-9 months post-baseline) and at 12, 24 and 36 months post-baseline on measures of alcohol use, knowledge and related harms. Primary outcomes were alcohol use, binge drinking (five or more standard drinks) and alcohol-related harms, obtained from all students regardless of whether or not they received intervention. Intervention effects at 36 months post-baseline were estimated from generalized multi-level mixed models using data from all time-points and accounting for school-level clustering. Exploratory analyses examined intervention effects among low- and high-risk adolescents. FINDINGS: Compared with students in the control condition, students in the climate, preventure and CAP groups demonstrated significantly slower increases in their likelihood to drink any alcohol [odds ratio (OR) = 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50-0.82 for climate; OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.43-0.71 for preventure and OR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.53-0.84 for CAP] to engage in binge drinking (OR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.44-0.82 for climate; OR = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.44-0.80 for preventure and OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.51-0.92 for CAP) and to experience alcohol harms (OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.49-0.82 for climate; OR = 0.55, 95% CI = 0.43-0.71 for preventure and OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.50-0.81 for CAP). There was no strong evidence that the combined approach showed advantages over universal prevention. The direction and magnitude of effects were consistent in low- and high-risk adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: The universal Climate Schools programme and the selective preventure programme were effective in reducing alcohol consumption and alcohol problems compared with standard Australian health education, when trialled individually and together over a 3-year period.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAddictionSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207