Docstoc

McKay

Document Sample
McKay Powered By Docstoc
					Michael McKay

Coordinator – Helping Hand Project (SHAHRP)
EHSSB Area of Northern Ireland
Eastern Health Social Services Area




                          74 Post-Primary
                              Schools
                            46 Greater
                           Belfast Area
Schools Profile - 74 schools

                             Board   Belfast
 Girls Grammar                 7     (6)
 Boys Grammar                  5     (4)
 Co-educational Grammar        15    (7)
 Single Sex Secondary          16    (14)
 Co-educational Secondary      31    (7)
 Catholic Maintained 30 – State 44
What is SHAHRP?

    Two phase alcohol harm reduction intervention
     – post primary schools
    “Mid teens” – 13 to 16 year olds
    McBride et al., (2004) Harm minimisation in
     school drug education: final results of
     SHAHRP. Addiction, 99, 278-291
    Australia – better knowledge, better attitudes
     and less “own” and “else” harm
    Focus on skill & active learning
Teenage Drinkers



         Law                      Education
     Enforcement




                   Availability
SHAHRP in N.I.

     Two phases also
     Phase 1 (6 sessions)
 1.   Myths & General Information
 2.   Making Choices/Alcohol & the Body
 3.   “Units” & matching use & consequences
 4.   Alcohol & other drugs & BAC/FAS
 5.   Alcohol & Media/ How reduce harm?
 6.   Real Scenarios & Debate
...cont’d

     Phase 2 (4 sessions)
 1.   Recap & Short/Long term effects
 2.   A night out & Pressures
 3.   Vulnerability & Always/Never
 4.   Risks, Advice & Safety
Workbook 1
Workbook 2
Teacher Support Pack
How is it received – believing your own Press
releases!

   “The areas I found important to the pupils were the exercise to show
    different units within alcohol as well as the lesson on highlighting
     the dangers of alcohol to the body. I feel that the scenarios made
        things more realistic for pupils rather than just text book.”


    “An excellent production - well related to our kids and their needs”


     “An excellent programme, really well presented and delivered to
      the students, very relevant. They looked forward to it, as did I.”

      “Perhaps more time would have been useful to enable greater
             communication and more input from pupils”
First Use & Harm


                        First Use & Harm Scores - 2007

   35
        29
   30

   25           22.7
                                 19
   20                                    16.5
                        15.1                       14.7
   15    12.8
                                                            11
   10                                                                7.1
                  5.8      6.3     6.4       5.3                              5.44.6
                                                      5       4.6       4.2
    5

    0
        Age 8   Age 9   Age 10   Age 11 Age 12 Age 13       Age 14   Age15    Age16

                                  Own Harm      Else Harm
Free School Meals

           Socio-Economics & Own Harm (baseline)

  12

  10

  8

  6

  4

  2

  0
       Meals 1       Meals 2       Meals 3         Meals 4
Free School Meals

         Socio-Economics & Own Harm swings 2005-2007

  200%     178%

  150%
                            107%               101%
                  93%                93%
  100%
                                                      48%
  50%

   0%
            Meals 1           Meals 2           Meals 3

                           Control   Project
Knowledge about alcohol and its effects


                 Knowledge change 2005-2008

     60.00%                                   55%

     50.00%

     40.00%

     30.00%
                  18.00%
     20.00%

     10.00%

      0.00%
                  Control                 Intervention
Attitudes towards alcohol & related behaviours


                    Attitudes change 05-08

      7.00%
                                             6%
      6.00%
      5.00%
      4.00%
      3.00%
      2.00%
      1.00%
      0.00%
      -1.00%      Control                Intervention
                  -1.00%
      -2.00%
Harm caused to self by “own” consumption


                  Own Harm change 05-08

     180%
                155%
     160%
     140%
     120%
     100%
      80%                                    66%
      60%
      40%
      20%
       0%
                Control                   Intervention
Harm caused by other drinkers



                   Else Harm change 05-08

     80%         75%
     70%
     60%
     50%
     40%                                       32%
     30%
     20%
     10%
      0%
                Control                     Intervention
Background

 Focus groups – qualitative material
 List of measures of interest...
 1. Self Esteem
 2. Self Efficacy (Academic, Emotional &
     Social)
 3. Academic Motivation
 4. Parental Rules about drinking
Contd...

 5. Attachment to Parents (Trust,
     Communication & Alienation)
 6. Attachment to Peers (Trust,
     Communication & Alienation)
 7. Involvement with Alcohol
 8. Alcohol Expectancies (+ or -)
Context

  1057 valid responses from 12 post
   primary schools
  Pupils drawn from years 8 through 12
  Normal distribution of drinking groups –
   abstainers* non problematic and
   problematic drinkers
Results
     Backwards stepwise linear regression
     Dependent variable – AAIS score (Alcohol)
     8 significant independent variables
     * p<0.05; ** p<0.01; *** p<0.001
 1.   School Year (β = 0.161***) (8-9 and 10-11 key points)
 2.   Gender (β = 0.09***) (female > male)
 3.   Self Efficacy total score (β = 0.068**)
 4.   Parental Trust (β = 0.076*)
 5.   Parent Communication (β = -0.146***)
 6.   Positive expectancies (β = 0.414***)
 7.   Negative Expectancies (β = 0.087**)
 8.   Parental Rules (β = -0.266***)
Multinomial Logistic Regression
 Abstainers versus Non Problematic Drinkers
    NPD report: less parental communication,
    higher positive alcohol expectancies, lower
    negative expectancies & less strict parental
    rules
 Abstainers versus Problematic Drinkers
    PD more likely to be female and report: less
    parental communication, higher positive
    alcohol expectancies & less strict parental
    rules
Contd...

 Problematic vs Non Problematic Drinkers
   NPD more likely to be male and report: lower
   positive alcohol expectancies & less strict
   parental rules
Visually...
                                            Abstainer v     Abstainer v Problematic   Non-Problematic v
                                          Non-Problematic                                  Problematic




Academic / Social / Emotional Self
    Efficacy

Parent Trust


Parent Communication                                                 


Parent Alienation


Peer Trust / Communication / Alienation


Self Esteem


Academic Motivation


Positive Expectancies                                                                      
Negative Expectancies                           


Parental Rules                                                                             
Gender                                                                                      
How we drink…

           What they tell me...
  Effect




              Number of drinks

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:7
posted:2/22/2012
language:English
pages:27