Advertisement

Current Addiction Reports

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 87–92 | Cite as

The Classification and Organisation of Alcohol Misuse Prevention with a Focus on Environmental Prevention

  • Parvati R. Perman-Howe
  • Emma L. Davies
  • David R. Foxcroft
Alcohol (M Farrell and E Stockings, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Alcohol

Abstract

Purpose of Review

Classifying prevention as universal, selective or indicated only considers the form of interventions. This is limited as it fails to explain the function, or purpose, of interventions. This paper discusses a taxonomy for alcohol misuse prevention that considers both the form and function of prevention interventions. It adds to the previous literature by incorporating subcategories of classification for environmental prevention.

Recent Findings

Within each taxonomy category there are interventions which are more, and less effective, but not one single category has comprehensive evidence of efficacy. Environmental prevention may have the greatest potential to deliver interventions that are efficient, cost effective and reduce health inequalities. However, comprehensive, systems oriented, prevention coverage should combine all three functional approaches.

Summary

This taxonomy can be used to organise and classify alcohol misuse prevention interventions and to determine where alcohol misuse prevention strategies and research is warranted. Furthermore, it can help practitioners and researchers to consider the subcategories of environmental prevention: an area that is rapidly gaining traction in the prevention field.

Keywords

Prevention Classification Taxonomy Substance misuse Alcohol 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Parvati R. Perman-Howe, Emma L. Davies, and David R. Foxcroft declare they have no conflict of interest. However, Oxford Brookes University has received funding from the alcohol industry for unrelated education and training work.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All reported studies/experiments with human or animal subjects performed by the authors have been previously published and complied with all applicable ethical standards (including the Helsinki declaration and its amendments, institutional/national research committee standards, and international/national/institutional guidelines).

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Illness CC. Chronic illness in the United States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1957.  https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674497474.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gordan RS. An operational classification of disease prevention. Public Health Rep. 1983;98(2):3.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mrazek PJ, Haggerty RJ. Reducing risks for mental disorders: Frontiers for preventive intervention research. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Medicine NRCaIo. Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioural disorders among young people: progress and possibilities. Washington DC; 2009.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    •• Foxcroft DR. Can prevention classification be improved by considering the function of prevention? Prev Sci. 2014;15(6):818–22. An important article that proposes a novel classification system for prevention that considers both the function and form of intervention strategies. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    • Oncioiu S, Burkhart G, Calafat A, Duch M, Perman-Howe P, Foxcroft DR. Environmental substance use prevention interventions in Europe. Lisbon; (2018). http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/publications/technical-report/environmental-substance-use-preventioninterventions. An important article that defines environmental prevention and discusses its scope in Europe.
  7. 7.
    •• Moss AC, Albery IP. The science of absent evidence: is there such thing as an effective responsible drinking message? Alcohol alcohol. 2018;53(1):26–30.  https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agx070. An important systematic review that highlights the need for clearer evidence of the efficacy of responsible drinking message campaigns.
  8. 8.
    Lovatt M, Eadie D, Meier PS, Li J, Bauld L, Hastings G, et al. Lay epidemiology and the interpretation of low-risk drinking guidelines by adults in the United Kingdom. Addiction. 2015;110(12):1912–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13072.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    •• Foxcroft DR, Moreira M, Almeida Santimano NML, Smith LA. Social norms information for alcohol misuse in university and college students. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;(12):CD006748. DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006748.pub4. An important systematic review that concludes there is good evidence of weak or no effect of social normative feedback interventions reducing alcohol consumption.
  10. 10.
    Sheeran P, Gollwitzer PM, Bargh JA. Nonconscious processes and health. Health Psychol. 2013;32(5):460–73.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sniehotta FF, Presseau J, Araújo-Soares V. Time to retire the theory of planned behaviour. Health Psychol Rev. 2014;8(1):1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2013.869710.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    •• O'Donnell A, Anderson P, Newbury-Birch D, Schulte B, Schmidt C, Reimer J, et al. The impact of brief alcohol interventions in primary healthcare: a systematic review of reviews. Alcohol Alcohol. 2014;49(1):66–78. An important systematic review of reviews that shows screening and brief interventions for alcohol use are effective for addressing hazardous and harmful drinking in middle-aged males, but there lacks evidence of efficacy for other groups and within other settings. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brown J, West R, Angus C, Beard E, Brennan A, Drummond C, et al. Comparison of brief interventions in primary care on smoking and excessive alcohol consumption: a population survey in England. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(642):e1–9.  https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp16X683149.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Angus C, Thomas C, Anderson P, Meier PS, Brennan A. Estimating the cost-effectiveness of brief interventions for heavy drinking in primary health care across Europe. Eur J Pub Health. 2017;27(2):345–51.  https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckw122.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaner EFS, Beyer FR, Brown J, Crane D, Garnett C, Hickman M, et al. Personalised digital interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in community-dwelling populations. Cochrane Database Syst. 2015;(1). Art. NO: CD011479.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011479.
  16. 16.
    Singh I. Introducing the health apps Library 2013. Available from: http://www.england.nhs.uk/2013/03/13/health-apps-blog/.
  17. 17.
    Wicks P, Chiauzzi E. ‘Trust but verify’ – five approaches to ensure safe medical apps. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crane D, Garnett C, Brown J, West R, Michie S. Behavior Change Techniques in popular alcohol reduction apps: content analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(5):e118.  https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4060
  19. 19.
    •• Kaner EFS, Beyer FR, Garnett C, Crane D, Brown J, Muirhead C, et al. Personalised digital interventions for reducing hazardous and harmful alcohol consumption in community-dwelling populations. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9:Cd011479. An important systematic review that reveals moderate-quality evidence that digital interventions may lower alcohol consumption, but heterogeniety and risk of performance and publication bias may have falsely inflated the effect size. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Davies EL, Lonsdale AJ, Hennelly SE, Winstock AR, Foxcroft DR. Personalized digital interventions showed no impact on risky drinking in young adults: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Alcohol Alcohol 2017;52(6):671–676.  https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agx051.
  21. 21.
    Kahneman D. Thinking fast and slow. London: Penguin; 2012.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marteau TM, Hollands GJ, Fletcher PC. Changing human behavior to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science. 2012;337(6101):1492–5.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1226918.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Faggiano F, Vigna-Taglianti F, Burkhart G, Bohrn K, Cuomo L, Gregori D, et al. The effectiveness of a school-based substance abuse prevention program: 18-month follow-up of the EU-dap cluster randomized controlled trial. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010;108(1):56–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2009.11.018.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    •• Faggiano F, Minozzi S, Versino E, Buscemi D. Universal school-based prevention for illicit drug use. Cochrane Database of 2 Systematic Reviews, 2014;Issue 12. Art. NO: CD003020.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003020pub3. An important systematic review which concluded that school programmes based on a combination of social competence and social influence approaches showed small but consistent protective effects in preventing alcohol and drug use. The authors state that school-based programmes should form part of more comprehensive strategies for alcohol and drug use prevention in order to achieve a population-level impact.
  25. 25.
    Foxcroft DR, Tsertsvadze A. Universal alcohol misuse prevention programmes for children and adolescents: Cochrane systematic reviews. Perspect Public Health. 2012;132(3):128–34.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1757913912443487.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kellam SG, Brown CH, Poduska J, Ialongo N, Wang W, Toyinbo P, et al. Effects of a Universal Classroom Behavior Management Program in First and Second Grades on Young Adult Behavioral, Psychiatric, and Social Outcomes. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2008;95(Supplement 1):S5–S28.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kellam SG, Mackenzie ACL, Brown CH, Poduska JM, Wang W, Petras H, et al. The good behavior game and the future of prevention and treatment. Addiction science and. Clin Pract. 2011;6(1):12.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge. Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. International ed. London: Penguin; 2009.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pechey R, Couturier DL, Hollands GJ, Mantzari E, Munafo MR, Marteau TM. Does wine glass size influence sales for on-site consumption? A multiple treatment reversal design. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):390.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3068-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pechey R, Couturier DL, Hollands GJ, Mantzari E, Zupan Z, Marteau TM. Wine glass size and wine sales: a replication study in two bars. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10. England. p. 427.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ker K, Chinnock P. Interventions in the alcohol server setting for preventing injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2008;(3). Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD005244.pub3/abstract.
  32. 32.
    Stockwell T, Auld MC, Zhao J, Martin G. Does minimum pricing reduce alcohol consumption? The experience of a Canadian province. Addiction. 2012;107(5):912–20.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03763.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stockwell T, Zhao J, Martin G, Macdonald S, Vallance K, Treno A, et al. Minimum alcohol prices and outlet densities in British Columbia, Canada: estimated impacts on alcohol-attributable hospital admissions. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(11):2014–20.  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301289.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    •• Meng Y, Sadler S, Gell L, Holmes J, Brennan A. Model-based appraisal of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Wales. Welsh Government Social Research; 2014. An important report from the Welsh Government, which uses an adaptation of the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model (version 3). The report suggests that MUP would reduce alcohol consumption and its related harms and associated costs, have the greatest impact on higher-risk drinkers, and have the greatest health gains for those in poverty. Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meier PS, Holmes J, Angus C, Ally AK, Meng Y, Brennan A. Estimated effects of different alcohol taxation and price policies on health inequalities: a mathematical modelling study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(2):e1001963.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001963.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    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 and Drugs. 2014;75 Supplement 17, 108–115.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    •• Gmel G, Holmes J, Studer J. Are alcohol outlet densities strongly associated with alcohol-related outcomes? A critical review of recent evidence. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2015;35:40–54. An important systematic review which concludes that alcohol outlet densities are likely to be positively related to alcohol use and harm, however, effects vary across study areas, outlet types and outlet cluster size, which means that few policy recommendations can be given. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Pennay A, Room R. Prohibiting public drinking in urban public spaces: a review of the evidence. Drugs: Educ Prev Policy. 2012;19(2):11.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Room R. Individualised control of drinkers: back to the future? Contemp Drug Probl. 2012;32(2):33.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Department for Business IaS. The 2011 Skills for life survey: a survey of literacy, Numeracy and ICT Levels in England London; 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Parvati R. Perman-Howe
    • 1
  • Emma L. Davies
    • 2
  • David R. Foxcroft
    • 1
  1. 1.Oxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK
  2. 2.Oxford Brookes UniversityOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations