2. Youth in Europe -not a campaign but a quiet revolution-
Dr. Álfgeir Logi Kristjánsson
Icelandic Centre for Social Research and Analysis, ICSRA
Teachers College, Columbia University, NY, USA
The 18th ECAD Mayors’ conference
Varna, Bulgaria, May

3. 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

4. 1. ICSRA introduction

5. ICSRA
A governmental Youth research centre from 1992 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 2. The background of the Youth in Europe project

9. 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

10. 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

11. Iceland in 1992 Several data collections until 1998
Governmental decision to start collecting data from 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

12. Upward trend

13. 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

14. 2004
Already in 2004 we could see a substantial change in substance use.

15. Youth in Europe – A drug prevention program launched by:
2005
Youth 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

16. First data collection of Youth in Europe
2006
First data collection of Youth in Europe
Vilnius Reykjavik
Helsinki Riga
St. Petersburg Sofia Kaunas
Klaipeda
Oslo 9 cities

17. Second data collection of Youth in Europe
2008
Second data collection of Youth in Europe
Vilnius Bucharest
Reykjavik Riga
Arilje Klaipeda
Istanbul (Bagcilar) Kaunas
Jurmala Oslo
Sofia
11 cities

18. 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...”

19. 3. Main characteristics of Youth in Europe

20. The “research guru” approach

21. 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

22. 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

23. A primary prevention model because substance use follows cohorts Sigfusdottir et al. 2011, Global Health Promotion

24. 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

25. 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

26. Find risk and protective factors
Three simple steps:
Measure drug use, risk and protective factors in a cohort
Form policy and actions accordingly
Repeat regularly in same age-group

27. A way of conveying risk and protective factors in OUR society Sigfusdottir et al. 2009, Health Promotion International
Time
Support
Monitoring
Neighbourhood
Individual
Organized
vs.
Unorganized
Positive and negative effects
Attitudes to education and school, emotional well-being in school, etc.

28. A different way… Sameroff 2010, Child Development

29. The collaborative approach

30. 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

31. 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

32. Dialogue
The Youth in Europe approach relies on active collaboration and constant dialogue between researchers, policymakers and practicioners in the field of young people

33. 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

34. Our results 1998-2010. Sigfusdottir et al
Our results Sigfusdottir et al. 2008, Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention and Policy

35. 4. What about evaluation?

36. An attempt to evaluate the Icelandic success Kristjansson et al
An attempt to evaluate the Icelandic success Kristjansson 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%

37. Interaction effect: time. intervention, OR 0. 90 (95% CI: 0. 77-1
Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 0.90 (95% CI: , p= .099)

38. Interaction effect: time. intervention, OR 0. 86 (95% CI: 0. 78-0
Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 0.86 (95% CI: , p= .004)

39. Interaction effect: time. intervention, OR 1. 11 (95% CI: 1. 00-1
Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 1.11 (95% CI: , p= .044)

40. Interaction effect: time. intervention, OR 1. 11 (95% CI: 1. 02-1
Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 1.11 (95% CI: , p= .015)

41. Interaction effect: time. intervention, OR 0. 85 (95% CI: 0. 73-0
Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 0.85 (95% CI: , p= .034)

42. 5. Further evidence and potential future directions

43. Some future directions: Caffeine use. James et al
Some future directions: Caffeine use? James et al. 2011, Journal of Adolescence

44. Some future directions: Group effects. Kristjansson et al
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

45. Thank you Álfgeir Logi Kristjánsson kristjansson@tc. columbia
Thank you Álfgeir Logi Kristjánsson