Reducing young people's drinking

This series of Good Practice Guides is designed to share important information about health inequalities and some of the evidence-based measures that can be taken to reduce the stark differences in health and wellbeing within populations. The conditions in which people are born, grow, live, work and age can lead to health inequalities the unfair and avoidable differences in health status. Actions to tackle health inequalities demand the efforts of government, statutory organisations, and community, voluntary and private sectors. This Good Practice Guide to reducing young people's drinking is one of a series designed to capture information about health inequalities and highlight evidence-based interventions and key actions for improvement across sectors.This resource was contributed by The National Documentation Centre on Drug Use.

Good Practice Guides: Reducing young people's drinking

Actions to tackle health inequalities demand the efforts of government, statutory organisations, and community, voluntary and private sectors. This Good Practice Guide to reducing young people's drinking is one of a series designed to capture information about health inequalities and highlight evidence-based interventions and key actions for improvement across sectors.This resource was contributed by The National Documentation Centre on Drug Use.

Coping and anxiety: an examination of different drinking patterns in an Irish population.

The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effect of different drinking patterns in an Irish population on ability to cope with stress. Coping ability comprised approach coping responses, avoidance coping responses and trait anxiety levels. Coping responses were measured by the coping responses inventory (CRI, Moos, 1993) and trait anxiety by the state-trait anxiety inventory (STAI, Spielberger, 1983). A total of 128 participants took part in the study and were recruited from alcohol treatment centres and the general population.This resource was contributed by The National Documentation Centre on Drug Use.

Influence of counselor characteristics and behaviors on the efficacy of a brief motivational intervention for heavy drinking in young men-a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Brief motivational intervention (BMI) has shown promising results to reduce alcohol use in young adults. Knowledge on mechanisms that predict BMI efficacy could potentially improve treatment effect sizes through data that optimize clinical training and implementation. Particularly, little attention has been given to counselor influence on treatment mechanisms. METHODS: We investigated the influence of counselors on BMI efficacy in reducing alcohol use among non-treatment-seeking young men (age 20) screened as hazardous drinkers. Participants were randomly allocated to (i) a group receiving a single BMI from 1 of 18 counselors selected to maximize differences in several of their characteristics (gender, professional status, clinical experience, and motivational interviewing [MI] experience) or (ii) a control group receiving assessment only. Drinking at 3-month follow-up was first compared between the BMI and control groups to assess efficacy. Then, the influence of counselors' characteristics (i.e., gender, professional status, clinical experience, MI experience, BMI attitudes, and expectancies) and within-session behaviors (i.e., measured by the Motivational Interviewing Skill Code) on outcome was tested in regression analyses. RESULTS: There was a significant (p = 0.02) decrease in alcohol use among the BMI group compared to the control group. Counselors that were male, more experienced, that had more favorable BMI attitudes and expectancies, higher MI skills, but surprisingly less MI-consistent behaviors, had significantly better outcomes than the control group while their counterparts did not. CONCLUSIONS: The current study demonstrated BMI efficacy on alcohol use reduction within a sample of non-treatment-seeking young adult males. Moreover, BMI effect was related to interindividual differences among counselors, and results therefore provide recommendations for BMI training and implementation with similar populations.

Mental health and growing up factsheet. Drugs and alcohol - what parents need to know.

Information about drugs and alcohol - what parents need to know: information for parents, carers and anyone who works with young people. About this leaflet This is one in a series of leaflets for parents, teachers and young people entitled Mental Health and Growing Up. These leaflets aim to provide practical, up-to-date information about mental health problems (emotional, behavioural and psychiatric disorders) that can affect children and young people. This leaflet offers practical advice for parents, teachers and carers who are worried that a young person is misusing drugs or alcohol. Why do I need to know about a young person using drugs or alcohol? Many young people smoke, drink alcohol and may try drugs. It is important you are aware of this and do not ignore it as a time when they are just having fun or experimenting. It doesnââ,‰"¢t take much for the young people to soon lose control and to need help to recover from this problem. How common is it? By the age of 16, up to half of young people have tried an illegal drug. Young people are trying drugs earlier and more are drinking alcohol. What are the different types of drugs which cause problems? The most commonly used, readily available and strongly addictive drugs are tobacco and alcohol. There are numerous others that can be addictive. Alcohol and cannabis are sometimes seen as ââ,¬Ëogatewayââ,‰"¢ drugs that lead to the world of other drugs like cocaine and heroin. Drugs are also classed as ââ,¬Ëolegalââ,‰"¢ andââ,¬Ëoillegalââ,‰"¢. The obviously illegal drugs include cannabis (hash), speed (amphetamines), ecstasy (E), cocaine and heroin. Using ââ,¬Ëolegalââ,‰"¢ drugs (like cigarettes, alcohol, petrol, glue) does not mean they are safe or allowed to be misused. It just means they may be bought or sold for specific purposes and are limited to use by specific age groups. There are clear laws regarding alcohol and young people. For more detailed information on various drugs, their side-effects and the law, see ââ,¬ËoFurther Informationââ,‰"¢ at the end of the factsheet. Why do young people use drugs or alcohol? Young people may try or use drugs or alcohol for various reasons. They may do it for fun, because they are curious, or to be like their friends. Some are experimenting with the feeling of intoxication. Sometimes they use it to cope with difficult situations or feelings of worry and low mood. A young person is more likely to try or use drugs or alcohol if they hang out or stay with friends or family who use them. What can be the problems related to using drugs or alcohol? Drugs and alcohol can have different effects on different people. In young people especially the effects can be unpredictable and potentially dangerous. Even medications for sleep or painkillers can be addictive and harmful if not used the way they are prescribed by a doctor. Drugs and alcohol can damage health. Sharing needles or equipment can cause serious infections, such as HIV and hepatitis. Accidents, arguments and fights are more likely after drinking and drug use. Young people are more likely to engage in unprotected sex when using drugs. Using drugs can lead to serious mental illnesses, such as psychosis and depression. When does it become addiction or problem? It is very difficult to know when exactly using drugs or alcohol is more than just ââ,¬Ëocasualââ,‰"¢. Addiction becomes more obvious when the young person spends most of their time thinking about, looking for or using drugs. Drugs or alcohol then become the focus of the young personââ,‰"¢s life. They ignore their usual work, such as not doing their schoolwork, or stop doing their usual hobbies/sports such as dancing or football. How do I know if there is a problem or addiction? Occasional use can be very difficult to detect. If the young person is using on a regular basis, their behaviour often changes. Look for signs such as: ïâ?s§ unexplained moodiness ïâ?s§ behaviour that is ââ,¬Ëoout of character' ïâ?s§ loss of interest in school or friends ïâ?s§ unexplained loss of clothes or money ïâ?s§ unusual smells and items like silver foil, needle covers. Remember, the above changes can also mean other problems, such as depression, rather than using drugs. What do I do if I am worried? If you suspect young person is using drugs, remember some general rules. ïâ?s§ Pay attention to what the child is doing, including schoolwork, friends and leisure time. ïâ?s§ Learn about the effects of alcohol and drugs (see websites listed below). ïâ?s§ Listen to what the child says about alcohol and drugs, and talk about it with them. ïâ?s§ Encourage the young person to be informed and responsible about drugs and alcohol. ïâ?s§ Talk to other parents, friends or teachers about drugs - the facts and your fears and seek help. If someone in the family or close friend is using drugs or alcohol, it is important that they seek help too. It may be hard to expect the young person to give up, especially if a parent or carer is using it too. My child is abusing drugs. What do I do? ïâ?s§ If your child is using drugs or alcohol, seek help. ïâ?s§ Do stay calm and make sure of facts. ïâ?s§ Don't give up on them, get into long debates or arguments when they are drunk, stoned or high. ïâ?s§ Donââ,‰"¢t be angry or blame themââ,‰?othey need your help and trust to make journey of recovery. Where can I get help? You can talk in confidence to a professional like your GP or practice nurse, a local drug project or your local child and adolescent mental health. They can refer your child to relevant services and they will be able to offer you advice and support. You may also be able to seek help through a school nurse, teacher or social worker. You can find this information from your local area telephone book or council website, or ask for the address from your health centre. [For the full factsheet, click on the link above]This resource was contributed by The National Documentation Centre on Drug Use.

More is not always better-comparison of three instruments measuring volume of drinking in a sample of young men and their association with consequences

OBJECTIVE: In general population survey instruments that measure volume of drinking, additional questions and shorter reference periods yield higher volumes. Comparison studies have focused on volume but not on associations between volume and consequences. METHOD: From a cohort study on substance use risk factors (Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors [C-SURF]), baseline data were analyzed for 5,074 young (approximately 20-year-old) men who were drinkers in the past 12 months. Volume of drinking was measured by a generic quantity-frequency (QF) instrument, an extended QF (separately for weekends and weekdays) instrument with 12-months recall, and a retrospective past-week diary. Associations of consequences with and without attribution of alcohol as a cause, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), criteria for dependence, and DSM-5 alcohol use disorder in the past 12 months were analyzed. RESULTS: The generic QF measure resulted in lower volume compared with either the extended QF measure (more questions) or the retrospective diary (the most questions and the shortest recall period). For outcomes, however, the extended QF assessment performed the best and the diary the worst. CONCLUSIONS: Higher volume yields are not always better regarding associations with outcomes. The extended QF instrument better captures the variability of drinking. The retrospective diary performs poorly for associations because of the mismatch with the recall period for past-12-months consequences and the potential for misclassification of past-week abstainers and heavy drinkers because of an uncommon past week. Diaries are not recommended for research investigating individual associations between exposure and outcomes in young populations if consequences are measured with a sufficiently long interval to capture rare consequences. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs, 75, 880-888, 2014).

Choosing health. A briefing on reducing alcohol-related harm and encouraging sensible drinking in London

A briefing on reducing alcohol-related harm and encouraging sensible drinking in London. It forms part of the LHO's series of briefings on Choosing Health. It focuses on inequalities in alcohol use, alcohol related health inequalities, and alcohol-related harm and areas of best practice. It also summaries areas of possible action.

Peer pressure and alcohol use in young men: a mediation analysis of drinking motives.

BACKGROUND: Peer pressure (PP) has been shown to play a major role in the development and continuation of alcohol use and misuse. To date, almost all the studies investigating the association of PP with alcohol use only considered the PP for misconduct but largely ignored other aspects of PP, such as pressure for peer involvement and peer conformity. Moreover, it is not clear whether the association of PP with alcohol use is direct or mediated by other factors. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association of different aspects of peer pressure (PP) with drinking volume (DV) and risky single-occasion drinking (RSOD), and to explore whether these associations were mediated by drinking motives (DM). METHODS: A representative sample of 5521 young Swiss men, aged around 20 years old, completed a questionnaire assessing their usual weekly DV, the frequency of RSOD, DM (i.e. enhancement, social, coping, and conformity motives), and 3 aspects of PP (i.e. misconduct, peer involvement, and peer conformity). Associations between PP and alcohol outcomes (DV and RSOD) as well as the mediation of DM were tested using structural equation models. RESULTS: Peer pressure to misconduct was associated with more alcohol use, whereas peer involvement and peer conformity were associated with less alcohol use. Associations of drinking outcomes with PP to misconduct and peer involvement were partially mediated by enhancement and coping motives, while the association with peer conformity was partially mediated by enhancement and conformity motives. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that PP to misconduct constitutes a risk factor, while peer conformity and peer involvement reflect protective factors with regard to alcohol use. Moreover, results from the mediation analyses suggest that part of the association of PP with alcohol use came indirectly through DM: PP was associated with DM, which in turn were associated with alcohol use.

Guidelines for the provision of temporary drinking water supplies at events in Northern Ireland

This guidance is intended for use by organisers of events such as music festivals or agricultural shows where a temporary water supply may be required. It applies to all events that may require a connection to a new water supply as well as events that may require a connection to an existing supply, e.g. annual events taking place on the same showground.

The cost-effectiveness and public health benefit of nalmefene added to psychosocial support for the reduction of alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients with high/very high drinking risk levels: a Markov model.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether nalmefene combined with psychosocial support is cost-effective compared with psychosocial support alone for reducing alcohol consumption in alcohol-dependent patients with high/very high drinking risk levels (DRLs) as defined by the WHO, and to evaluate the public health benefit of reducing harmful alcohol-attributable diseases, injuries and deaths. DESIGN: Decision modelling using Markov chains compared costs and effects over 5 years. SETTING: The analysis was from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS) in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: The model considered the licensed population for nalmefene, specifically adults with both alcohol dependence and high/very high DRLs, who do not require immediate detoxification and who continue to have high/very high DRLs after initial assessment. DATA SOURCES: We modelled treatment effect using data from three clinical trials for nalmefene (ESENSE 1 (NCT00811720), ESENSE 2 (NCT00812461) and SENSE (NCT00811941)). Baseline characteristics of the model population, treatment resource utilisation and utilities were from these trials. We estimated the number of alcohol-attributable events occurring at different levels of alcohol consumption based on published epidemiological risk-relation studies. Health-related costs were from UK sources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We measured incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained and number of alcohol-attributable harmful events avoided. RESULTS: Nalmefene in combination with psychosocial support had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £5204 per QALY gained, and was therefore cost-effective at the £20,000 per QALY gained decision threshold. Sensitivity analyses showed that the conclusion was robust. Nalmefene plus psychosocial support led to the avoidance of 7179 alcohol-attributable diseases/injuries and 309 deaths per 100,000 patients compared to psychosocial support alone over the course of 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: Nalmefene can be seen as a cost-effective treatment for alcohol dependence, with substantial public health benefits. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: This cost-effectiveness analysis was developed based on data from three randomised clinical trials: ESENSE 1 (NCT00811720), ESENSE 2 (NCT00812461) and SENSE (NCT00811941).

Cessation of alcohol drinking, tobacco smoking and the reversal of head and neck cancer risk.

BACKGROUND: Quitting tobacco or alcohol use has been reported to reduce the head and neck cancer risk in previous studies. However, it is unclear how many years must pass following cessation of these habits before the risk is reduced, and whether the risk ultimately declines to the level of never smokers or never drinkers. METHODS: We pooled individual-level data from case-control studies in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium. Data were available from 13 studies on drinking cessation (9167 cases and 12 593 controls), and from 17 studies on smoking cessation (12 040 cases and 16 884 controls). We estimated the effect of quitting smoking and drinking on the risk of head and neck cancer and its subsites, by calculating odds ratios (ORs) using logistic regression models. RESULTS: Quitting tobacco smoking for 1-4 years resulted in a head and neck cancer risk reduction [OR 0.70, confidence interval (CI) 0.61-0.81 compared with current smoking], with the risk reduction due to smoking cessation after >/=20 years (OR 0.23, CI 0.18-0.31), reaching the level of never smokers. For alcohol use, a beneficial effect on the risk of head and neck cancer was only observed after >/=20 years of quitting (OR 0.60, CI 0.40-0.89 compared with current drinking), reaching the level of never drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support that cessation of tobacco smoking and cessation of alcohol drinking protect against the development of head and neck cancer.

The association between drinking motives and alcohol-related consequences - room for biases and measurement issues?

Aims  To investigate whether the predominant finding of generalized positive associations between self-rated motives for drinking alcohol and negative consequences of drinking alcohol are influenced by (i) using raw scores of motives that may weight inter-individual response behaviours too strongly, and (ii) predictor-criterion contamination by using consequence items where respondents attribute alcohol use as the cause. Design  Cross-sectional study within the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and other Drugs (ESPAD). Setting  School classes. Participants  Students, aged 13-16 (n = 5633). Measurements  Raw, rank and mean-variance standardized scores of the Drinking Motives Questionnaire-Revised (DMQ-R); four consequences: serious problems with friends, sexual intercourse regretted the next day, physical fights and troubles with the police, each itemized with attribution ('because of your alcohol use') and without. Findings  As found previously in the literature, raw scores for all drinking motives had positive associations with negative consequences of drinking, while transformed (rank or Z) scores showed a more specific pattern: external reinforcing motives (social, conformity) had negative and internal reinforcing motives (enhancement, coping) had non-significant or positive associations with negative consequences. Attributed consequences showed stronger associations with motives than non-attributed ones. Conclusion  Standard scoring of the Drinking Motives Questionnaire (Revised) fails to capture motives in a way that permits specific associations with different negative consequences to be identified, whereas use of rank or Z-scores does permit this. Use of attributed consequences overestimates the association with drinking motives.