peer-led interventions to prevent tobacco, alcohol and/or drug use among young people: what's...
TRANSCRIPT
Welcome!Peer-led interventions to
prevent tobacco, alcohol
and/or drug use among young
people: What's the evidence?
You will be placed on hold until the webinar begins.
The webinar will begin shortly, please remain on the line.
Poll Questions: Consent
• Participation in the webinar poll questions is voluntary
• Names are not recorded and persons will not be identified in any way
• Participation in the anonymous polling questions is accepted as an
indication of your consent to participate
Benefits:
• Results inform improvement of the current and future webinars
• Enable engagement; stimulate discussion. This session is intended for
professional development. Some data may be used for program evaluation
and research purposes (e.g., exploring opinion change)
• Results may also be used to inform the production of systematic reviews
and overviews
Risks: None beyond day-to-day living
After Today
• The PowerPoint presentation and audio recording will be made available
• These resources are available at: – PowerPoint:
http://www.slideshare.net/HealthEvidence
– Audio Recording: https://www.youtube.com/user/healthevidence/videos
3
What’s the evidence?
MacArthur G.J., Harrison S., Caldwell D.M.,
Hickman M., & Campbell R. (2016). Peer-led
interventions to prevent tobacco, alcohol
and/or drug use among young people aged
11-21 years: A systematic review and meta-
analysis. Addiction, 111(3), 391-407.
http://www.healthevidence.org/view-
article.aspx?a=peer-led-interventions-prevent-tobacco-
alcohol-drug-young-people-aged-11-21-29422
• Use Q&A or CHAT to post
comments / questions during the
webinar
– ‘Send’ questions to All
Panelists (not
privately to ‘Host’)
• Connection issues
– Recommend using a wired
Internet connection (vs.
wireless)
• WebEx 24/7 help line
– 1-866-229-3239
Participant Side Panel in WebExHousekeeping
Housekeeping (cont’d)
• Audio
– Listen through your speakers
– Go to ‘Communicate > Audio Broadcast’
• WebEx 24/7 help line
– 1-866-229-3239
Poll Question #1
How many people are watching
today’s session with you?
A. Just me
B. 2-3
C. 4-5
D. 6-10
E. >10
The Health Evidence™ Team
Maureen Dobbins
Scientific Director
Heather Husson
Manager
Susannah Watson
Project Coordinator
Students:
Emily Belita
(PhD candidate)
Jennifer Yost
Assistant ProfessorOlivia Marquez
Research Coordinator
Emily Sully
Research AssistantLiz Kamler
Research Assistant
Zhi (Vivian) Chen
Research Assistant
Research Assistants:
Lina Sherazy
Claire Howarth
Rawan Farran
What is www.healthevidence.org?
Evidence
Decision
Making
inform
Why use www.healthevidence.org?
1. Saves you time
2. Relevant & current evidence
3. Transparent process
4. Supports for EIDM available
5. Easy to use
A Model for Evidence-
Informed Decision Making
National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (revised 2012). A
Model for Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Public Health (Fact
Sheet). [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/FactSheet_EIDM_EN_WEB.pdf]
Stages in the process of
Evidence-Informed Public Health
National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. Evidence-Informed
Public Health. [http://www.nccmt.ca/eiph/index-eng.html]
Poll Question #2
Have you heard of PICO(S) before?
A. Yes
B. No
Searchable Questions Think “PICOS”
1.Population (situation)
2.Intervention (exposure)
3.Comparison (other group)
4.Outcomes
5.Setting
How often do you use Systematic Reviews
to inform a program/services?
A. Always
B. Often
C. Sometimes
D. Never
E. I don’t know what a systematic review is
Poll Question #3
Dr. Georgie MacArthur
National Institute for Health
Research Postdoctoral
Research Fellow, School of
Social and Community
Medicine, University of Bristol
Peer-led interventions reduce odds of
youth tobacco smoking, alcohol use, and
cannabis use
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Neutral
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree17
Poll Question #4
The Review
• Peer-led interventions to prevent
tobacco, alcohol and/or drug use among
young people aged 11-21 years: a
systematic review and meta-analysis
Addiction (2015) 111;3: 391-407
doi: 10.1111/add.13224
Review Team
• Dr Georgie MacArthur
• Dr Sean Harrison
• Dr Deborah Caldwell
• Professor Matt Hickman
• Professor Rona Campbell
• School for Social and Community Medicine,
University of Bristol, England
Background & Introduction
• Initiation of substance use during adolescence
• Age of onset similar across h/i countries
• Overall downward trends in UK. Nevertheless:
24%
Drugs in past
year
8% regular smoking
35% ever smoked
34%
Drinking at
hazardous levels
>50%
Drinking in past
week
Fuller E. Health and Social Care Information Centre (2015); MacArthur et al, Journal of Public Health 2012; Public Health
England. Data intelligence summary (2016)
Background & Introduction
• Rank of UK among 36 European countries (2011):
o 5th for drug use
o 7th for binge drinking
Hibell B et al (2011). The 2011 ESPAD Report. Substance use
among students in 36 European countries. The Swedish Council
for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs, Stockholm, Sweden.
Having had 5+ drinks on one occasion during past 30 days
(%) by gender.
Public Health Importance
Smoking
Alcohol
Drugs
Early smoking- trajectory
Cancers, CVD, stroke, chronic
respiratory disease, premature death
Violence, injury, accidents, sexual risk
behaviour
Cancers, CVD, liver disease & others
Mental health problems, vehicle risk,
risk of dependence later in life
• Range of negative consequences
• Short and long-term
Global Burden
• Burden rises in adolescence & young adulthood
• Age 15-19 yrs:
Alcohol + Drugs 7% health burden
• Age 20-24 yrs:
Alcohol + Drugs 10% total health burden
• Tobacco: Western Europe & African countries
• Alcohol: Eastern Europe, W Europe, N America, Australasia
• Cannabis: USA, Canada, Australia, NZ, Western Europe
Degenhardt L et al, Lancet Psychiatry 2016; 3: 251-64.
Pschubert
Interventions (excl. population level)
• Substantial body of literature
• Evidence in support of:
o Parenting interventions
o School-based interventions:
o Multi-component school-based programs for tobacco use (less clear
alcohol and drugs)
o Certain non-specific programmes e.g. social influences for alcohol
use
o Social norms (small but positive effect) - alcohol
o Programmes that improve personal and interpersonal skills and
address social influences for drug use
o Individual-level interventions: findings are mixed
Faggiano Cochrane Database Sys Rvws 2014; Stockings et al, Lancet 2016; Allen et al, Pediatrics 2016; Kuntsche & Kuntsche,
Clinical Psychology Review 2016; Foxcroft and Tsertsvadze, Perspectives in Public Health, 2012
Interventions
• Heterogeneous body of evidence
o Variation in participants, components, duration,
outcomes, follow up
o Differential effects by age & intensity
o Methodological and reporting issues
oRisk of bias
Scope for novel approaches
Background and Rationale
• Role & impact of peers and social
networks on alcohol use
o Harnessing role or influences
o Novel intervention
o Peer-based models
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
++
Peers and substance use
• Peers play prominent role at this stage
• Association with substance-using peers
associated with young people’s use
o Influence of behaviour
o Selection of peers with similar behaviour
o Both mechanisms
o E.g. 6-fold greater likelihood of drinking with 4 vs 0 drinking
peers
Kelly et al, Addictive Behaviors, 2012; Ali and Dwyer , Addictive Behaviors, 2010
Peer-based approaches
• Delivery, facilitation, group work
• Part or all of intervention
• Same age / older peers
o Formal or informal settings
o Educational,
o Discursive, ‘diffusion’
‘The teaching or sharing of health information, values and behaviours by
members of similar age or status group’
(Sciacca J. Peer Facilitator Quarterly 1987;5: 4-6)
Peer-based approaches
• Credibility• Learn from each other• Shared cultural background• Understand behaviour• Positive role models
Evidence Base• School-based health education
o n=7/11 (64%) peers at least as effective as adults
o n=9/11 (75%) more effective vs control (Mellanby, 2000)
• Peer-delivered health promotion interventions
o n=7/12 (58%) effective for ≥1 behavioural outcome
o n=5 with contradictory results (Harden, 2001)
Evidence Base
• Positive view from young people (Harden, 1999, 2001)
• Overall, evidence not clear
• Lack of methodological rigor
• No meta-analysis
• No recent evidence (published 1999-2001)
Aims and Methodology
• Identify and review the latest evidence
• Interventions targeting those in secondary and
tertiary education
• Searches:
o Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cinahl, ERIC, Cochrane
Library, AEI, BEI
o Grey literature
o Mixture of MESH and text words
Inclusion & Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion Exclusion
Randomised controlled trials Non-randomised studies
>6 weeks follow up Clinical or brief interventions
>50% aged 11-21 years Multi-component interventions
Peers involved in substantial
component of intervention
delivery
Targeting prescription or body-
enhancing drugs
No language or geographical restriction
Review focus
P Young people aged 11-21 years
I Interventions in any setting targeting alcohol, tobacco
and/ or drug use
Peers involved in substantial part of intervention
delivery
C Usual practice, no intervention
Teacher/ professional/ adult-led
O Tobacco use (including smokeless tobacco)
Alcohol use
Drug use (including cannabis, cocaine, ecstasy, glue,
gas, aerosol, solvents, magic mushrooms, crack,
ketamine, heroin, poppers, LSD, methamphetamine,
amphetamine)
Methodology & Analysis
Duplicate
screening
Duplicate data
extraction
Extracted/
calculated /
converted to OR
Adjusted for
clustering
(incl sensitivity)
Random effects
model
(fixed effects as
sensitivity)
Heterogeneity
(I2 and 2 test)
Funnel plot and
Egger Test
Duplicate Risk of
Bias (Cochrane
Tool)
Records identified through database searching
(n=1,387)
Medline (n=375)
Embase (n=361)
PsycINFO (n=130)
CINAHL (n=143)
ERIC (n=108)
Cochrane Library (n=265)
Grey literature (n=2)
Hand searching (n=3)
Records after duplicates removed
(n=796)
Records screened
(n=796)Records excluded (n=726)
Full-text articles assessed for eligibility
(n=70) Full-text articles excluded (n=45):
Study design (n=16)
Lack of peer involvement (n=14)
Multiple components (n=4)
Publication type (n=2)
Ineligible outcomes (n=4)
Type of intervention (n=1)
Other (n=4)
Studies included in qualitative synthesis (n=25)
Unique studies
(n=17)
Studies included in quantitative synthesis
(n=14)
Tobacco (n=10)
Alcohol (n=6)
Cannabis (n=3)
Flow Diagram
Characteristics of Studies
• Over half (59%):
o Conducted in 1980s and 90s
o Conducted in USA
o Targeted young people aged 12-14 years
• Majority (82%) school-based
• ~Half (53%) targeted tobacco
o One quarter targeted all 3 substances
Characteristics of studies II
• Weeks to years
• 2 to 36 sessions
• Curriculum to
conversations
• Same age & older
peers
• Teachers &
facilitators
• Refusal
• Consequences
• Norms
• Videos
• Communication
• Scenarios, role play
• Advertising
• Peer pressure
• Resisting influences
Role & selection of peers
• Led classes, boosters, group sessions,
activities, role-play, conversations
• Selected by classmates, recruited by
teachers, volunteers
• Training: range 1 hr to 9-month course
Study
Sequence
generation
Allocation
concealment
Blinding
(participants)
Blinding
(outcome
assessment)
Incomplete
outcome
data
Selective
reporting Other
Albrecht, 2006 + ? - ? - ? +
Armstrong, 1991 ? ? + + ? ? -
Bobrowski, 2014 ? ? - ? + ? ?
Botvin, 2001 ? ? ? ? - -
Campbell, 2008 + + + ? + + +
Elder, 1993 ? ? - ? + ? +
Ellickson, 1990 ? ? - ? + ? +
Fromme, 2004 ? ? - ? ? ? +
Lotrean, 2010 + ? - ? + ? +
Luna-Adame, 2013 ? ? - ? ? + +
Murray, 1987 ? ? - ? - ? ?
Perry, 1989 ? ? - ? + ? +
Rosenblum, 2008 ? ? - ? ? - -
Severson, 1991 ? ? - ? - ? +
Telch, 1990 ? ? - ? ? - ?
Valente, 2007 ? ? - - ? ? +
Wilhelmsen, 1994 ? ? - ? ? + +
Risk of Bias
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: handbook.Cochrane.org
Findings: Tobacco
N=13,706
220 schools
OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-
0.99
p=0.04
I2 = 41%, 2 15.2, p=0.086
I-V Overall (I-squared = 40.7%, p = 0.086)
Campbell
Valente
Elder
Severson
D+L Overall
Lotrean
Armstrong
Telch
Luna-Adame
Botvin
Ellickson
Author
2001
2007
1988
1985
2006
1981
1984
2013
1984
1984
Date
0.79 (0.67, 0.93)
0.67 (0.46, 0.97)
0.79 (0.54, 1.17)
0.57 (0.36, 0.88)
1.13 (0.75, 1.69)
0.78 (0.62, 0.99)
0.45 (0.19, 1.04)
0.87 (0.61, 1.23)
0.26 (0.03, 2.24)
3.49 (0.70, 17.45)
0.33 (0.08, 1.32)
1.20 (0.60, 2.41)
ES (95% CI)
0.79 (0.67, 0.93)
0.67 (0.46, 0.97)
0.79 (0.54, 1.17)
0.57 (0.36, 0.88)
1.13 (0.75, 1.69)
0.78 (0.62, 0.99)
0.45 (0.19, 1.04)
0.87 (0.61, 1.23)
0.26 (0.03, 2.24)
3.49 (0.70, 17.45)
0.33 (0.08, 1.32)
1.20 (0.60, 2.41)
ES (95% CI)
1.01 .1 1 10
Odds Ratio
Findings: Alcohol
N=1,699
66 schools
1 university
OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-
0.99
p=0.04
I2 = 15%, 2 5.9, p=0.321
.
.
Overall (I-squared = 14.5%, p = 0.321)
Subtotal (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.685)
Botvin
Valente
Unadjusted
Wilhelmsen
Study
Perry
Subtotal (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.514)
Fromme
Adjusted
Ellickson
1984
2007
1992
Date
1986
2004
1984
0.80 (0.65, 0.99)
1.03 (0.74, 1.45)
0.88 (0.32, 2.39)
0.59 (0.40, 0.88)
0.92 (0.58, 1.47)
ES (95% CI)
0.67 (0.46, 0.98)
0.70 (0.56, 0.88)
0.98 (0.63, 1.51)
1.12 (0.66, 1.91)
0.80 (0.65, 0.99)
1.03 (0.74, 1.45)
0.88 (0.32, 2.39)
0.59 (0.40, 0.88)
0.92 (0.58, 1.47)
ES (95% CI)
0.67 (0.46, 0.98)
0.70 (0.56, 0.88)
0.98 (0.63, 1.51)
1.12 (0.66, 1.91)
1.01 .1 1 10
Odds Ratio
Findings: Alcohol II
• 6 studies, fewer participants
• Meta-analysis of unadjusted estimates
only null effect
• Sensitivity analysis (excl 1 study)
null effect
Findings: Cannabis
N=976
38 schools
OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50-
0.97
p=0.034
I2 = 0%, 2 1.0, p=0.605
Overall
Unadjusted
Adjusted
Valente
Botvin
Subtotal
Ellickson
Subtotal
Study
2007
1984
1984
Date
0.70 (0.50, 0.97)
0.69 (0.47, 1.02)
0.24 (0.03, 2.22)
0.79 (0.40, 1.56)
0.79 (0.40, 1.56)
0.67 (0.46, 0.98)
ES (95% CI)
0.70 (0.50, 0.97)
0.69 (0.47, 1.02)
0.24 (0.03, 2.22)
0.79 (0.40, 1.56)
0.79 (0.40, 1.56)
0.67 (0.46, 0.98)
ES (95% CI)
1.01 .1 1 10
Odds Ratio
Adverse effects
• 2 studies
• Enhanced tobacco / alcohol use among higher-
risk groups
o Peer leaders identified via social network
nominations
o Higher use among those with existing networks of
substance-using peers (Valente, 2007)
o Higher prevalence of smoking & pro-smoking
attitudes among baseline smokers in peer-led arm (Ellickson, 1990)
Study Summary
• Multiple databases
• Three behaviours
• Quantified effect for
1st time
• Low quality of evidence
& risk of bias
• Insufficient data to
compare across risk
groups or by
gender/ethnicity/SES
• Cultural norms of 1980s
and 90s
Summary
• Corroborate and strengthen evidence
• Peer-led interventions can reduce tobacco,
alcohol and possibly cannabis use in young
people
o Peers embedded in social groups
o Share social, cultural norms & background
o Credibility
o Possible benefits to peer leaders themselves
• Scope for more extensive trial and
implementation e.g. school-based curriculum for tobacco
Implications & Conclusions
• Poor quality evidence
• Potential for adverse consequences
o Cultural, social and peer norms
o Targeting of messages in different risk groups
o Wider influences of behaviour
• Need for robust, rigorously conducted studies
o Longer follow up
o Process evaluations
Acknowledgements• Georgie MacArthur is supported by a National Institute for Health Research
(NIHR) post-doctoral fellowship (PDF-2013-06-026). The views expressed are
those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National
Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health.
• Sean Harrison (Wellcome Trust PhD programme in Molecular, Genetic and
Lifecourse Epidemiology, grant number 102432/Z/13/Z)
• Deborah Caldwell (Medical Research Council population health scientist award
(G0902118))
• Rona Campbell and Matt Hickman are members of the UKCRC Public Health
Centre of Excellence at Bristol, Cardiff and Swansea (DECIPHer) and the NIHR
School for Public Health Research
The work was undertaken with the support of The Centre for the Development and
Evaluation of Complex Interventions for Public Health Improvement (DECIPHer), a
UKCRC Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Joint funding
(MR/KO232331/1) from the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic
and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council, the Welsh Government and the
Wellcome Trust, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is
gratefully acknowledged.
Peer-led interventions reduce odds of
youth tobacco smoking, alcohol use, and
cannabis use
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Neutral
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree51
Poll Question #5
A Model for Evidence-
Informed Decision Making
National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (revised 2012). A
Model for Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Public Health (Fact
Sheet). [http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/FactSheet_EIDM_EN_WEB.pdf]
Poll Question #6
The information presented today was
helpful
A. Strongly agree
B. Agree
C. Neutral
D. Disagree
E. Strongly disagree
What can I do now?
Visit the website; a repository of over 4,600 quality-rated systematic reviews
related to the effectiveness of public health interventions. Health Evidence™ is
FREE to use.
Register to receive monthly tailored registry updates AND monthly newsletter
to keep you up to date on upcoming events and public health news.
Tell your colleagues about Health Evidence™: helping you use best evidence to
inform public health practice, program planning, and policy decisions!
Follow us @Health Evidence on Twitter and receive daily public health review-
related Tweets, receive information about our monthly webinars, as well as
announcements and events relevant to public health.
Encourage your organization to use Health Evidence™ to search for and apply
quality-rated review level evidence to inform program planning and policy
decisions.
Contact us to suggest topics or provide feedback.
Poll Question #7
What are your next steps? [Check all
that apply]
A. Access the full text systematic review
B. Access the quality assessment for the
review on www.healthevidence.org
C. Consider using the evidence
D. Tell a colleague about the evidence
Thank you!
Contact us:
For a copy of the presentation please visit:
http://www.healthevidence.org/webinars.aspx