Cost-effectiveness of a combined classroom curriculum and parental intervention: economic evaluation of data from the Steps Towards Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programme cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the Steps Towards Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programme (STAMPP) compared with education as normal (EAN) in reducing self-reported heavy episodic drinking (HED) in adolescents. DESIGN: This is a cost-effectiveness analysis from a public sector perspective conducted as part of a cluster randomised trial. SETTING: This study was conducted in 105 high schools in Northern Ireland and in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Students in school year 8/S1 (aged 11-12) at baseline were included in the study. INTERVENTIONS: This is a classroom-based alcohol education curricula, combined with a brief alcohol intervention for parents/carers. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome of this study is the cost per young person experiencing HED avoided due to STAMPP at 33 months from baseline. RESULTS: The total cost of STAMPP was £85 900, equivalent to £818 per school and £15 per pupil. Due to very low uptake of the parental component, we calculated costs of £692 per school and £13 per pupil without this element. Costs per pupil were reduced further to £426 per school and £8 per pupil when it was assumed there were no additional costs of classroom delivery if STAMPP was delivered as part of activities such as personal, social, health and economic education. STAMPP was associated with a significantly greater proportion of pupils experiencing a heavy drinking episode avoided (0.08/8%) and slightly lower public sector costs (mean difference -£17.19). At a notional willingness-to-pay threshold of £15 (reflecting the cost of STAMPP), the probability of STAMPP being cost-effective was 56%. This level of uncertainty reflected the substantial variability in the cost differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: STAMPP was relatively low cost and reduced HED. STAMPP was not associated with any clear public sector cost savings, but neither did it increase them or lead to any cost-shifting within the public sector categories. Further research is required to establish if the cost-effectiveness of STAMPP is sustained in the long term. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47028486; Results.

Recanting of Previous Reports of Alcohol Consumption within a Large-Scale Clustered Randomised Control Trial.

The aim of this study was to examine the extent of recanting (inconsistencies in reporting of lifetime alcohol use) and its impact on the assessment of primary outcomes within a large-scale alcohol prevention trial. One hundred and five post-primary schools in were randomised to receive either the intervention or education as normal. Participants (N = 12,738) were secondary school students in year 8/S1 (mean age 12.5) at baseline. Self-report questionnaires were administered at baseline (T0) and at T1 (+ 12 months post-baseline), T2 (+ 24 months) and T3 (+ 33 months). The primary outcomes were (i) heavy episodic drinking (consumption of ≥ 6 units in a single episode in the previous 30 days for males and ≥ 4.5 units for females) assessed at T3 and (ii) the number of alcohol-related harms experienced in the last 6 months assessed at T3. Recanting was defined as a negative report of lifetime alcohol consumption that contradicted a prior positive report. Between T1 and T3, 9.9% of students recanted earlier alcohol consumption. Recanting ranged from 4.5 to 5.3% across individual data sweeps. While recanting was significantly associated (negatively) with both primary outcomes, the difference in the rate of recanting across trial arms was small, and adjusting for recanting within the primary outcome models did not impact on the primary outcome effects. Males were observed to recant at a greater rate than females, with a borderline small-sized effect (V = .09). While differential rates of recanting have the potential to undermine the analysis of prevention trial outcomes, recanting is easy to identify and control for within trial primary outcome analyses. Adjusting for recanting should be considered as an additional sensitivity test within prevention trials.Trial Registration: ISRCTN47028486 ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN47028486 ). The date of trial registration was 23/09/2011, and school recruitment began 01/11/2011.

Steps Towards Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programme (STAMPP): a school-based and community-based cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of a combined classroom curriculum and parental intervention (the Steps Towards Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programme (STAMPP)), compared with alcohol education as normal (EAN), in reducing self-reported heavy episodic drinking (HED) and alcohol-related harms (ARHs) in adolescents. SETTING: 105 high schools in Northern Ireland (NI) and in Scotland. PARTICIPANTS: Schools were stratified by free school meal provision. Schools in NI were also stratified by school type (male/female/coeducational). Eligible students were in school year 8/S1 (aged 11-12 years) at baseline (June 2012). INTERVENTION: A classroom-based alcohol education intervention, coupled with a brief alcohol intervention for parents/carers. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: (1) The prevalence of self-reported HED in the previous 30 days and (2) the number of self-reported ARHs in the previous 6 months. Outcomes were assessed using two-level random intercepts models (logistic regression for HED and negative binomial for number of ARHs). RESULTS: At 33 months, data were available for 5160 intervention and 5073 control students (HED outcome), and 5234 and 5146 students (ARH outcome), respectively. Of those who completed a questionnaire at either baseline or 12 months (n=12 738), 10 405 also completed the questionnaire at 33 months (81.7%). Fewer students in the intervention group reported HED compared with EAN (17%vs26%; OR=0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.73), with no significant difference in the number of self-reported ARHs (incident rate ratio=0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05). Although the classroom component was largely delivered as intended, there was low uptake of the parental component. There were no reported adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that STAMPP could be an effective programme to reduce HED prevalence. While there was no significant reduction in ARH, it is plausible that effects on harms would manifest later. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN47028486; Post-results.

The differential impact of a classroom-based, alcohol harm reduction intervention, on adolescents with different alcohol use experiences: a multi-level growth modelling analysis.

While evidence has accumulated suggesting that prevention initiatives may have a limited impact on alcohol use behaviour, reviews suggest that interventions with most potential for behavioural change are interactive and developmental in design. The School Health and Alcohol Harm Reduction Project (SHAHRP) is an example of such an intervention. Researchers are increasingly attempting to understand the differential effects of programmes in population subgroups. The present study is a secondary analysis of data from a non-randomised trial of SHAHRP, a classroom-based alcohol education intervention, involving school children (aged 13-16 years old) in the United Kingdom. Results showed that there were significant positive changes in knowledge about and attitudes towards alcohol in baseline abstainers, supervised drinkers and unsupervised drinkers. Significant positive behavioural effects in terms of amounts consumed, frequency of drinking and self-reported alcohol related harms, were observed almost exclusively among baseline unsupervised drinkers. These behavioural effects support those previously observed in Australia and suggest that the intervention is a viable health promotion tool in the UK.

The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: a bifactor answer to a two-factor question?

Despite its long-standing and widespread use, disagreement remains regarding the structure of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). In particular, concern remains regarding the degree to which the scale assesses self-esteem as a unidimensional or multidimensional (positive and negative self-esteem) construct. Using a sample of 3,862 high school students in the United Kingdom, 4 models were tested: (a) a unidimensional model, (b) a correlated 2-factor model in which the 2 latent variables are represented by positive and negative self-esteem, (c) a hierarchical model, and (d) a bifactor model. The totality of results including item loadings, goodness-of-fit indexes, reliability estimates, and correlations with self-efficacy measures all supported the bifactor model, suggesting that the 2 hypothesized factors are better understood as "grouping" factors rather than as representative of latent constructs. Accordingly, this study supports the unidimensionality of the RSES and the scoring of all 10 items to produce a global self-esteem score.