Youth in Europe -not a campaign but a quiet revolution-

Youth in Europe -not a campaign but a quiet revolution-

Dr. Álfgeir Logi KristjánssonIcelandic Centre for Social Research and Analysis, ICSRA

Teachers College, Columbia University, NY, USA

The 18th ECAD Mayors’ conferenceVarna, 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 from1992 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

17,015,1

20,7 21,0 21,422,8

4,0

7,2

9,611,5

13,0

17,4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

%

Smoke daily Have tried hashish

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

42

3532

33

2628

2623

1916

15 14 141217

1512 11 12 13

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

%

Drunk last 30 days Daily smoking Hashish once or more

2005Youth 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

Vilnius ReykjavikHelsinki RigaSt. Petersburg Sofia KaunasKlaipedaOslo 9 cities

First data collection of Youth in Europe

2008Second data collection of Youth in Europe

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

20,3

40,5

56,9

10

24,9

41

8,2

22,3

31,5

3,9

11,5

20,9

6,1

13,9 15,7

0,9 5,6

10,7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

13 14 15 13 14 15

Cohort 1984 Cohort 1991

%

Lifetime drunkenness Drunkenness in last 30 days Smoke cigarettes daily

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 accordingly3. 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

Peer group

School

Leisure time Individual

Neighbourhood

Organized vs.

Unorganized

TimeSupportMonitoring

Attitudes to education and school, emotional well-being in school, etc.

Positive and negative effects

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

42

3532

33

2628

26

2225

18 19

14

23

1916

15 14 1412 11 12 10

107

1715

12 11 12 13

9 9 97 6 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010

%

Drunk last 30 days Daily smoking Hashish once or more

4. What about evaluation?

An attempt to evaluate the Icelandic successKristjansson 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)





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 youÁlfgeir Logi Kristjá[email protected]

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Youth in Europe -not a campaign but a quiet revolution-