Brief alcohol intervention for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in secondary schools: the SIPS JR-HIGH RCT

Emma L Giles, Grant J Mcgeechan, Simon Coulton, Paolo Deluca, Colin Drummond, Denise Howel, Eileen Kaner, Elaine Mccoll, Ruth Mcgovern, Stephanie Scott, Elaine Stamp, Harry Sumnall, Liz Todd, Luke Vale, Viviana Albani, Sadie Boniface, Jennifer Ferguson, Eilish Gilvarry, Nadine Hendrie, Nicola Howe & 4 others Helen Mossop, Amy Ramsay, Grant Stanley, Dorothy Newbury-birch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

1 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background

Adverse effects from young people’s alcohol consumption manifest in a range of physical and psychosocial factors, including neurological issues, cognitive impairment and risk-taking behaviours. The SIPS JR-HIGH pilot trial showed alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) to be acceptable to young people and schools in the north-east of England.
Objectives

To conduct a two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in the school setting, to monitor the fidelity of ASBI and to explore the barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation with staff, young people and parents.
Design

A baseline survey with a 12-month follow-up. Interviews with 30 school staff, 21 learning mentors and nine teachers, and 33 young people and two parents.
Setting

Thirty state schools in four areas of England: north-east, north-west, Kent and London.
Participants

Year 10 school pupils who consented to the study (aged 14–15 years, recruited between November 2015 and June 2016), school-based staff and parents of the young people who took part in the study.
Interventions

Young people who screened positively on a single alcohol screening question and consented were randomised to the intervention or control arm (blinded). The intervention was a 30-minute one-to-one structured brief intervention with a trained learning mentor and an alcohol leaflet. The control group received a healthy lifestyle leaflet (no alcohol information).
Main outcome measures

The primary outcome measure was total alcohol consumed in the last 28 days. Secondary outcomes related to risky drinking, general psychological health, sexual risk-taking, energy drink consumption, age of first smoking, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-years, service utilisation and demographic information.
Results

A total of 4523 young people completed the baseline survey, with 1064 screening positively (24%) and 443 being eligible to take part in the trial. Of those 443, 233 (53%) were randomised to the control arm and 210 were randomised to the intervention arm. Of the 443, 374 (84%) were successfully followed up at 12 months (intervention, n = 178; control, n = 196). The results were that the intervention showed no evidence of benefit for any alcohol-related measure when compared with the control arm. At 12 months we found a reduction from 61.9% to 43.3% using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test cut-off point of 8 and cut-off point of 4 (69.0% to 60.7%). These results were not significant. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average net cost saving of the brief intervention was £2865 (95% confidence interval –£11,272 to £2707) per year compared with usual practice, with the intervention showing a 76% probability of being cost saving compared with usual practice. The interview findings showed that school was an acceptable setting to carry out ASBI among staff and young people.
Limitations

Recruitment of parents to take part in interviews was poor. Only 18 ASBI sessions were recorded, making it difficult to assess internal validity.
Conclusions

Although the intervention was ineffective in reducing risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years, it was well received by the young people and school staff who participated.
Future work

Uniform reporting of the outcomes used for ASBI would generate more robust conclusions on the effectiveness of ASBI in the future. Pilot feasibility studies should include more than one geographical area. Future work on involving parents is needed.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)i-134
Number of pages164
JournalPublic Health Research
Volume7
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 8 May 2019

Fingerprint

Drinking
Alcohols
Arm
Mentors
Parents
Interviews
Risk-Taking
England
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Energy Drinks
Quality of Life
Learning
Psychology
Costs and Cost Analysis
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Reproductive Health
Feasibility Studies
Pupil
Alcohol Drinking
Randomized Controlled Trials

Cite this

Giles, Emma L ; Mcgeechan, Grant J ; Coulton, Simon ; Deluca, Paolo ; Drummond, Colin ; Howel, Denise ; Kaner, Eileen ; Mccoll, Elaine ; Mcgovern, Ruth ; Scott, Stephanie ; Stamp, Elaine ; Sumnall, Harry ; Todd, Liz ; Vale, Luke ; Albani, Viviana ; Boniface, Sadie ; Ferguson, Jennifer ; Gilvarry, Eilish ; Hendrie, Nadine ; Howe, Nicola ; Mossop, Helen ; Ramsay, Amy ; Stanley, Grant ; Newbury-birch, Dorothy. / Brief alcohol intervention for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in secondary schools: the SIPS JR-HIGH RCT. In: Public Health Research. 2019 ; Vol. 7, No. 9. pp. i-134.
@article{53e7371c5cfd4b50ad8cf2e47a18f397,
title = "Brief alcohol intervention for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in secondary schools:: the SIPS JR-HIGH RCT",
abstract = "BackgroundAdverse effects from young people’s alcohol consumption manifest in a range of physical and psychosocial factors, including neurological issues, cognitive impairment and risk-taking behaviours. The SIPS JR-HIGH pilot trial showed alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) to be acceptable to young people and schools in the north-east of England.ObjectivesTo conduct a two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in the school setting, to monitor the fidelity of ASBI and to explore the barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation with staff, young people and parents.DesignA baseline survey with a 12-month follow-up. Interviews with 30 school staff, 21 learning mentors and nine teachers, and 33 young people and two parents.SettingThirty state schools in four areas of England: north-east, north-west, Kent and London.ParticipantsYear 10 school pupils who consented to the study (aged 14–15 years, recruited between November 2015 and June 2016), school-based staff and parents of the young people who took part in the study.InterventionsYoung people who screened positively on a single alcohol screening question and consented were randomised to the intervention or control arm (blinded). The intervention was a 30-minute one-to-one structured brief intervention with a trained learning mentor and an alcohol leaflet. The control group received a healthy lifestyle leaflet (no alcohol information).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was total alcohol consumed in the last 28 days. Secondary outcomes related to risky drinking, general psychological health, sexual risk-taking, energy drink consumption, age of first smoking, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-years, service utilisation and demographic information.ResultsA total of 4523 young people completed the baseline survey, with 1064 screening positively (24{\%}) and 443 being eligible to take part in the trial. Of those 443, 233 (53{\%}) were randomised to the control arm and 210 were randomised to the intervention arm. Of the 443, 374 (84{\%}) were successfully followed up at 12 months (intervention, n = 178; control, n = 196). The results were that the intervention showed no evidence of benefit for any alcohol-related measure when compared with the control arm. At 12 months we found a reduction from 61.9{\%} to 43.3{\%} using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test cut-off point of 8 and cut-off point of 4 (69.0{\%} to 60.7{\%}). These results were not significant. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average net cost saving of the brief intervention was £2865 (95{\%} confidence interval –£11,272 to £2707) per year compared with usual practice, with the intervention showing a 76{\%} probability of being cost saving compared with usual practice. The interview findings showed that school was an acceptable setting to carry out ASBI among staff and young people.LimitationsRecruitment of parents to take part in interviews was poor. Only 18 ASBI sessions were recorded, making it difficult to assess internal validity.ConclusionsAlthough the intervention was ineffective in reducing risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years, it was well received by the young people and school staff who participated.Future workUniform reporting of the outcomes used for ASBI would generate more robust conclusions on the effectiveness of ASBI in the future. Pilot feasibility studies should include more than one geographical area. Future work on involving parents is needed.",
author = "Giles, {Emma L} and Mcgeechan, {Grant J} and Simon Coulton and Paolo Deluca and Colin Drummond and Denise Howel and Eileen Kaner and Elaine Mccoll and Ruth Mcgovern and Stephanie Scott and Elaine Stamp and Harry Sumnall and Liz Todd and Luke Vale and Viviana Albani and Sadie Boniface and Jennifer Ferguson and Eilish Gilvarry and Nadine Hendrie and Nicola Howe and Helen Mossop and Amy Ramsay and Grant Stanley and Dorothy Newbury-birch",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "8",
doi = "10.3310/phr07090",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "i--134",
journal = "Public Health Research",
issn = "2050-439X",
publisher = "NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme",
number = "9",

}

Giles, EL, Mcgeechan, GJ, Coulton, S, Deluca, P, Drummond, C, Howel, D, Kaner, E, Mccoll, E, Mcgovern, R, Scott, S, Stamp, E, Sumnall, H, Todd, L, Vale, L, Albani, V, Boniface, S, Ferguson, J, Gilvarry, E, Hendrie, N, Howe, N, Mossop, H, Ramsay, A, Stanley, G & Newbury-birch, D 2019, 'Brief alcohol intervention for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in secondary schools: the SIPS JR-HIGH RCT' Public Health Research, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. i-134. https://doi.org/10.3310/phr07090

Brief alcohol intervention for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in secondary schools: the SIPS JR-HIGH RCT. / Giles, Emma L; Mcgeechan, Grant J; Coulton, Simon; Deluca, Paolo; Drummond, Colin; Howel, Denise; Kaner, Eileen; Mccoll, Elaine; Mcgovern, Ruth; Scott, Stephanie; Stamp, Elaine; Sumnall, Harry; Todd, Liz; Vale, Luke; Albani, Viviana; Boniface, Sadie; Ferguson, Jennifer; Gilvarry, Eilish; Hendrie, Nadine; Howe, Nicola; Mossop, Helen; Ramsay, Amy; Stanley, Grant; Newbury-birch, Dorothy.

In: Public Health Research, Vol. 7, No. 9, 08.05.2019, p. i-134.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Brief alcohol intervention for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in secondary schools:

T2 - the SIPS JR-HIGH RCT

AU - Giles, Emma L

AU - Mcgeechan, Grant J

AU - Coulton, Simon

AU - Deluca, Paolo

AU - Drummond, Colin

AU - Howel, Denise

AU - Kaner, Eileen

AU - Mccoll, Elaine

AU - Mcgovern, Ruth

AU - Scott, Stephanie

AU - Stamp, Elaine

AU - Sumnall, Harry

AU - Todd, Liz

AU - Vale, Luke

AU - Albani, Viviana

AU - Boniface, Sadie

AU - Ferguson, Jennifer

AU - Gilvarry, Eilish

AU - Hendrie, Nadine

AU - Howe, Nicola

AU - Mossop, Helen

AU - Ramsay, Amy

AU - Stanley, Grant

AU - Newbury-birch, Dorothy

PY - 2019/5/8

Y1 - 2019/5/8

N2 - BackgroundAdverse effects from young people’s alcohol consumption manifest in a range of physical and psychosocial factors, including neurological issues, cognitive impairment and risk-taking behaviours. The SIPS JR-HIGH pilot trial showed alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) to be acceptable to young people and schools in the north-east of England.ObjectivesTo conduct a two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in the school setting, to monitor the fidelity of ASBI and to explore the barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation with staff, young people and parents.DesignA baseline survey with a 12-month follow-up. Interviews with 30 school staff, 21 learning mentors and nine teachers, and 33 young people and two parents.SettingThirty state schools in four areas of England: north-east, north-west, Kent and London.ParticipantsYear 10 school pupils who consented to the study (aged 14–15 years, recruited between November 2015 and June 2016), school-based staff and parents of the young people who took part in the study.InterventionsYoung people who screened positively on a single alcohol screening question and consented were randomised to the intervention or control arm (blinded). The intervention was a 30-minute one-to-one structured brief intervention with a trained learning mentor and an alcohol leaflet. The control group received a healthy lifestyle leaflet (no alcohol information).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was total alcohol consumed in the last 28 days. Secondary outcomes related to risky drinking, general psychological health, sexual risk-taking, energy drink consumption, age of first smoking, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-years, service utilisation and demographic information.ResultsA total of 4523 young people completed the baseline survey, with 1064 screening positively (24%) and 443 being eligible to take part in the trial. Of those 443, 233 (53%) were randomised to the control arm and 210 were randomised to the intervention arm. Of the 443, 374 (84%) were successfully followed up at 12 months (intervention, n = 178; control, n = 196). The results were that the intervention showed no evidence of benefit for any alcohol-related measure when compared with the control arm. At 12 months we found a reduction from 61.9% to 43.3% using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test cut-off point of 8 and cut-off point of 4 (69.0% to 60.7%). These results were not significant. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average net cost saving of the brief intervention was £2865 (95% confidence interval –£11,272 to £2707) per year compared with usual practice, with the intervention showing a 76% probability of being cost saving compared with usual practice. The interview findings showed that school was an acceptable setting to carry out ASBI among staff and young people.LimitationsRecruitment of parents to take part in interviews was poor. Only 18 ASBI sessions were recorded, making it difficult to assess internal validity.ConclusionsAlthough the intervention was ineffective in reducing risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years, it was well received by the young people and school staff who participated.Future workUniform reporting of the outcomes used for ASBI would generate more robust conclusions on the effectiveness of ASBI in the future. Pilot feasibility studies should include more than one geographical area. Future work on involving parents is needed.

AB - BackgroundAdverse effects from young people’s alcohol consumption manifest in a range of physical and psychosocial factors, including neurological issues, cognitive impairment and risk-taking behaviours. The SIPS JR-HIGH pilot trial showed alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI) to be acceptable to young people and schools in the north-east of England.ObjectivesTo conduct a two-arm, individually randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI for risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years in the school setting, to monitor the fidelity of ASBI and to explore the barriers to, and facilitators of, implementation with staff, young people and parents.DesignA baseline survey with a 12-month follow-up. Interviews with 30 school staff, 21 learning mentors and nine teachers, and 33 young people and two parents.SettingThirty state schools in four areas of England: north-east, north-west, Kent and London.ParticipantsYear 10 school pupils who consented to the study (aged 14–15 years, recruited between November 2015 and June 2016), school-based staff and parents of the young people who took part in the study.InterventionsYoung people who screened positively on a single alcohol screening question and consented were randomised to the intervention or control arm (blinded). The intervention was a 30-minute one-to-one structured brief intervention with a trained learning mentor and an alcohol leaflet. The control group received a healthy lifestyle leaflet (no alcohol information).Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was total alcohol consumed in the last 28 days. Secondary outcomes related to risky drinking, general psychological health, sexual risk-taking, energy drink consumption, age of first smoking, quality of life, quality-adjusted life-years, service utilisation and demographic information.ResultsA total of 4523 young people completed the baseline survey, with 1064 screening positively (24%) and 443 being eligible to take part in the trial. Of those 443, 233 (53%) were randomised to the control arm and 210 were randomised to the intervention arm. Of the 443, 374 (84%) were successfully followed up at 12 months (intervention, n = 178; control, n = 196). The results were that the intervention showed no evidence of benefit for any alcohol-related measure when compared with the control arm. At 12 months we found a reduction from 61.9% to 43.3% using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test cut-off point of 8 and cut-off point of 4 (69.0% to 60.7%). These results were not significant. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed that the average net cost saving of the brief intervention was £2865 (95% confidence interval –£11,272 to £2707) per year compared with usual practice, with the intervention showing a 76% probability of being cost saving compared with usual practice. The interview findings showed that school was an acceptable setting to carry out ASBI among staff and young people.LimitationsRecruitment of parents to take part in interviews was poor. Only 18 ASBI sessions were recorded, making it difficult to assess internal validity.ConclusionsAlthough the intervention was ineffective in reducing risky drinking in young people aged 14–15 years, it was well received by the young people and school staff who participated.Future workUniform reporting of the outcomes used for ASBI would generate more robust conclusions on the effectiveness of ASBI in the future. Pilot feasibility studies should include more than one geographical area. Future work on involving parents is needed.

U2 - 10.3310/phr07090

DO - 10.3310/phr07090

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - i-134

JO - Public Health Research

JF - Public Health Research

SN - 2050-439X

IS - 9

ER -