Transcript Slide 1

Youth in Europe
-not a campaign but a quiet revolutionDr. Álfgeir Logi Kristjánsson
Icelandic Centre for Social Research and Analysis, ICSRA
Teachers College, Columbia University, NY, USA
The 18th ECAD Mayors’ conference
Varna, Bulgaria, May 11-14 2011
Presentation overview
• 1. ICSRA introduction
• 2. The background of the Youth in Europe project
• 3. Main characteristics of Youth in Europe
• 4. What about evaluation?
• 5. Further evidence and possible future directions
1. ICSRA introduction
ICSRA
• A governmental Youth research centre from
1992 focusing on education and the upbringing of
youth
• ICSRA established 1998 with a broad focus on
several aspects of youth research
• Lead Youth research centre since 1998
• Coordinated studies in 16 countries across Europe
ICSRA scientific collaborators
• Karolinska Instututet, Sweden
• Kings College, London
• National University of Ireland, Galway
• University of California, Irvine
• Columbia University, Teachers College, NY
• University of Iceland
• Penn State University, PA
• Reykjavik University
ICSRA specialization
• 10 to 13 year old in Primary schools
• 14 to 16 year old in Secondary schools
• 16 to 20 year old in High schools/Junior colleges
• 16 to 20 year old and outside schools
-Dropout students
• Longitudinally designed study of the 2000 birth cohort in
planning stages
2. The background of the
Youth in Europe project
What is Youth in Europe?
• An evidence based drug prevention approach
• A way to decrease the use and demand for drugs
among young people
• Similar methodology in place in most Scandinavian
countries – still with notable differences
A few milestones of YiE
• 1992 – First ICSRA data collection
• 1998 – Severe substance use and abuse problems
• 2004 – A gradual downward trend
• 2005 – Youth in Europe began
• 2006 – First Youth in Europe data collection
• 2008 – Second Youth in Europe data collection
• 2012 – Third Youth in Europe data collection planned
Iceland in 1992
• Governmental decision to start collecting data
from 15-16 year old students
•
Aim: To see if and how information collected
could benefit policymaking and decisions for
actions in youth matters
• Several data collections until 1998
Upward trend 1992 - 1998
30
Smoke daily
Have tried hashish
25
22,8
20,7
21,0
21,4
20
17,0
15,1
%
17,4
15
13,0
11,5
10
9,6
7,2
5
4,0
0
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Iceland in 1998
• A research based action plan initiated by the
government with the aim to try out a different
methodology in substance use & abuse prevention
• A nationwide task to decrease substance use
• Collaboration between researchers, policy makers and
practitioners begins
2004
50
45
Drunk last 30 days
42
Daily smoking
40
35
35
32
33
30
%
25
26
26
23
19
20
15
28
16
17
15
14
11
12
14
15
12
10
12
13
9
5
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Hashish once or more
2005
Youth in Europe – A drug prevention program
launched by:
•
European Cities Against Drugs, ECAD
•
City of Reykjavik: Chair
•
President of Iceland, HE Grimsson: Patron
•
ICSRA: Project leader and data collection
coordinator
•
ACTAVIS: Main sponsor
2006
First data collection of Youth in Europe
Vilnius
Helsinki
St. Petersburg
Kaunas
Klaipeda
Oslo
Reykjavik
Riga
Sofia
9 cities
2008
Second data collection of Youth in Europe
Vilnius
Reykjavik
Arilje
Istanbul (Bagcilar)
Jurmala
Sofia
Bucharest
Riga
Klaipeda
Kaunas
Oslo
11 cities
Some comments from cities...
•“...data from research is now used as a basis for
desicion making...”
•“...information from data is already having impact
on policymaking...”
•“...YiE method is a successful step in drug
prevention...”
•“...empirical data is of vital support in our work...”
3. Main characteristics of
Youth in Europe
The “research guru” approach
Main characteristics of YiE
• First and foremost a primary prevention approach
• A program without a timeframe
• Based on by-annual cross sectional research
• Aims to identify risk and protective factors and to
assess their trends as well as trends in substance use
• A tool for policymakers and practitioners/fieldworkers
• Aims to create a dialogue between researchers, policy
makers and practitioners
Approach to prevention
 Primary prevention, preventing the
development of substance use before it
starts
 Secondary prevention, that refers to
measures that detect substance use that has
began
 Tertiary prevention efforts that focus on
people already abusing substances
A primary prevention model because
substance use follows cohorts
Sigfusdottir et al. 2011, Global Health Promotion
Lifetime drunkenness
60
Drunkenness in last 30 days
Smoke cigarettes daily
56,9
50
41
40,5
40
31,5
% 30
24,9
20,3
22,3
20,9
20
10
8,2
15,7
13,9
10
11,5
10,7
3,9
0
6,1
13
0,9
14
15
Cohort 1984
13
5,6
14
Cohort 1991
15
A program “without a timeframe”
• Not based on classical interventions with a
defined beginning and end points
• Aims to alter society as a whole for the benefit of
young people, making their environment and
living conditions encouraging in such a way that
they do not choose to begin to use drugs
• Change behaviour and not merely attitudes
towards drug use
Based on by-annual cross sectional research
• Relies on repeated cross-sectional surveys of the
same age group rather than a within group
cohort design or randomized trials
• Not a longditunal study design
• Why?
- Concernes the study focus between a within group
behavioral change design vs. a between groups
environmental change design
Find risk and protective factors
Three simple steps:
1. Measure drug use, risk and protective factors
in a cohort
2. Form policy and actions accordingly
3. Repeat regularly in same age-group
A way of conveying risk and protective factors in
OUR society
Sigfusdottir et al. 2009, Health Promotion International
Family
Time
Support
Monitoring
Neighbourhood
Leisure time
Individual
Organized
vs.
Unorganized
Peer group
Positive and
negative effects
School
Attitudes to education and
school, emotional well-being in
school, etc.
A different way…
Sameroff 2010, Child Development
28
The collaborative approach
Example of our local actions
• Research is a basis for local level actions
(prerequisite)
• Strengthen parent organizations and cooperation
• Support organized extra – curricular activities
• Support active NGOs´
• Support Young people at risk inside schools
• Form co-operative work groups against drugs
• Anti drug-use campaigns
Example of our national actions
• Legal age of adulthood raised from 16 to 18 years
• Outside hours for adolecents ,,Youth curfew”
• Age limits to buy tobacco and alcohol (18 and 20)
• Strict regulations around the selling of tobacco
• A total advertising ban of tobacco and alcohol
• Restricted access to buying alcohol and tobacco
• Total visibility ban of tobacco and alcohol in shops
Dialogue
• The Youth in Europe approach relies on
active collaboration and constant dialogue
between researchers, policymakers and
practicioners in the field of young people
Dialogue between key practitioners
• Politicians (elected officials), municipal- and local authorities
• Parental groups and family planners
• School authorities and school workers
• Health educators, health- and social services
• Leisure time workers, prevention people
• Sports and youth institutions
• Suggest open meetings for anyone interested
• Encourage open discussion about improvements
Our results 1998-2010...
Sigfusdottir et al. 2008, Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention and Policy
50
45
Hashish once or more
Daily smoking
Drunk last 30 days
42
40
35
35
32
33
30
%
25
26
26
23
25
22
19
20
15
28
18
16
15
17
14
14
15
12
10
11
12
12
11
12
14
10
10
13
9
5
19
9
9
7
6
7
6
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2008
2009
2010
4. What about evaluation?
An attempt to evaluate the Icelandic success
Kristjansson et al. 2010, Preventive Medicine
 The study used a quasi-experimental, non-randomized
control group design, to assess the relative change in
substance use and associated factors in 4 intervention- and
7 control communities, depending on their participation and
committement to the prevention activities
 Uses pooled data from 5 cross-sectional data collections
among 9th and 10th graders, from 1997, 2000, 2003, 2006,
and 2009
 Number of respondents: 5,024 (n1=3,117, n2=1,907)
 Response rates:
Intervention communities: 85.7%
Control communities: 90.1%
Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 0.90 (95% CI: 0.77-1.00, p= .099)
Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 0.86 (95% CI: 0.78-0.96, p= .004)
Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 1.11 (95% CI: 1.00-1.22, p= .044)
Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02-1.21,
p= .015)
Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 0.85 (95% CI: 0.73-0.99, p= .034)
5. Further evidence and
potential future directions
Some future directions: Caffeine use?
James et al. 2011, Journal of Adolescence
Some future directions: Group effects?
Kristjansson et al. in preparation
•
A new analysis of peer-group influences shows that the
odds of daily smoking and lifetime drunkenness increases
300% and 258% respectively, for each point in increase
on a five-point Likert scale, for the number of friends that
do so
•
In addition; attending schools were the prevalence of peer
group relationships with substance using friends,
measured on the same scale, increases by one unit, the
odds of daily smoking and lifetime drunkenness increases
by 89% and 61% respectively, for each point, over and
above the individual-level odds
•
=> school context matters in addition to individual level
effects
Thank you
Álfgeir Logi Kristjánsson
[email protected]
[email protected]