WP4 ADPY How does it work? Jón Sigfússon ©ICSRA Reykjavik University

1.Mapping of substance use in local settings 2.Establish local risk and protective factors 3.Create a local basis for: Dialouge between those working on primary prevention Actions if and where needed WP4 - Why is this important?

Our results using this methodology

The scientific role of research 1.In depth information from analysis of data 2.Publish - Generate peer reviewed papers 3.Science forms the platform for practice

The practical role of research 1.Data collections on a long term, regular basis 2.Map status and find risk and protective factors in the local environment 3.Generate descriptive reports a.s.a.p. and deliver information to everyone involved in prevention on the local level / municipalities

Four common risk and protective factors Family factors Peer group effect General well being Extracurricular activities, sports

Focus on primary prevention

Substance use decrease amongst year old adolescents

ADPY Mapping and analysis.

EstoniaFaroe Islands IcelandLatvia LithuaniaNorway RomaniaRussia SerbiaSweden Countries ADPY/YiE 2012/2013 Ten countries

Bagrationovsk Drammen Klaipeda Nynäshamn Sovjetsk Participating this winter Arilje Bucharest Kaunas Reykjavik Riga Tallinn Torshavn Vilnius

1.Preparations started in Programme started in Co-ordination meetings in Riga, Tallinn, Vilnius, Kaliningrad and Stockholm 4.Follow-up meetings in Klaipeda, Nynäshamn, Bucharest e.t.c. 5.Continued follow-up meetings next months Timespan of project

1.Youth in Europe – A Drug Prevention Programme October and November ADPY in February 2013 Data collections

Participants ADPY

Participants YiE

Focus on 15 – 16 year old students All in all over 16 thousand this winter Questionnaires hold around 400 variables. Over 7 million answers in all. Participants

Indicators Health status indicators, anxiety, depressive symptoms, physical health status, lifestyle and leisure time activities, local community networks, negative life events and strain, parents and family, peer group economic and psychological issues, studies and school, substance use, values and attitudes, violence and delinquency, and more…

1.Most work procedures according to plan. 2.Pre-meetings, questionnaire agreement, translations, layout (centralized), printing, transportation, school cooperation, data collection e.t.c. 3.Optical scanning for better data quality. The Plan and deviations

1.Sovjetsk work processes, delay of questionnaire delivery and lack of communication jeopardized the project, causing lots of additional work, data merging, data analysis, making of multible reports, e.t.c. 2.No technical reports yet from Sovjetsk Special problems - A

1.Individual numbering for Drammen (ICSRA) 2.Late appointment of co-ordinator from Nynäshamn Special problems - B

In May 2013 every community received 1.A descriptive report on substance use status and other indicators 2.Full SPSS dataset for further research and digging into various correlations Delivery of reports and data

SO... now we have all this information

Daily smoking – comparison between participating municipalities

Snuff past 30 days - comparison

Water pipe past 30 days - comparison

Drunk past 30 days - comparison

Drunk past 30 days – Reykjavik 1998 and 2013

Where young people drink – all cities

Cannabis lifetime - comparison

1.Sleeping pills 2.Amphetamins 3.Ecstacy 4.Sniffing 5.Organic drugs 6.E.t.c. Other substances

Debute year of alcohol – city comparison

1.Smoking 2.Cannabis Same for

Parents reaction to children getting drunk

Caring and warmth and daily smoking

Parental monitoring and getting drunk

Engagement in sports and substance use

Well being in school and getting drunk

Conclusions

What do we know now? 1.First of all that we want to know more! 2.Reports show “the tip of the iceberg” 3.Practical LOCAL information – status! 4.Risk and protective behaviour supported by earlier evidence!

What to do with it? 1.Get the prevention work around facts and address properly 2.Stress the dialogue between all parties 3.Follow up measurements annually or bi- annually at least 4.Learn – adjust and continue

Substance abuse decrease amongst year old adolescents

What is the commitment?

Cities for Youth Reykjavik 19th – 20th March 2013