This page refers to the current evidence available on the effectiveness of prevention interventions for partygoers. Information on the methodology used and the definition of terms can be found on the methodology page.
Date of last update: 05.2017 Next update: 10.2017
Summary: Drink-driving programmes, media campaigns and multicomponent interventions involving the community are effective in reducing car accidents, public nuisance and violence related to alcohol consumption. Police supervision can reduce public disorders and training of alcohol servers reduces clients’ alcohol consumption and intoxication.
Drink-driving service (free transport home - ‘Tipsy Taxi’ service (operated 24 hours a day, 365 days a year) providing a free ride home for persons too intoxicated to drive. Service offered by bar employee or request made to bar employee by patron. Control areas had no such service.) for intoxicated drinkers was found to be effective in a systematic review ( Ker and Chinnock, 2008) in:
According to three narrative reviews (Calafat, 2010; Calafat, Juan and Duch, 2009; Faggiano and Vigna-Taglianti, 2008) and one systematic review (Tay 2005), drink-driving mass media campaigns have proven:
The project STAD (Stockholm Prevents Alcohol and Drug Problems), a multicomponent programme that has been active for ten years based on community mobilisation, training in RBS for servers and stricter enforcement of existing alcohol laws, was found in two narrative reviews (Calafat, 2010; Calafat, Juan and Duch, 2009) to be effective in:
The Community Trials project including community mobilisation, media advocacy, RBS training, and enhanced enforcement efforts against drink-driving and under-age drinking was found to be effective in two narrative reviews (Calafat, 2010; Calafat, Juan and Duch, 2009) in:
The Sacramento Neighbourhood Alcohol Prevention Project was found effective in a narrative review (EMCDDA, 2012) and in two systematic reviews (Jones, Hughes, Atkinson and Bellis, 2010; Bolier, Voorham, Monshouwer, van Hasselt and Bellis, 2011) in:
The 'A Matter of Degree' programme was found effective in a narrative review (EMCDDA, 2012) and in two systematic reviews (Jones, Hughes, Atkinson and Bellis, 2010; Bolier, Voorham, Monshouwer, van Hasselt and Bellis, 2011) in:
Police interventions in licensed premises, with uniformed police officers visiting pubs two to three times a week was found in a narrative review (Calafat, Juan and Duch, 2009) to lead to:
Police intervention in high-risk premises was found in a systematic review (Jones, Hughes, Atkinson and Bellis, 2010) and in a narrative review (EMCDDA, 2012) to be a more effective strategy than ‘low level’ policing in:
Police interventions aimed at reducing the movement of clients between bars, the overall alcohol consumption of clients and contain that consumption within safer settings was found to be effective in a systematic review (Ker and Chinnock, 2008) in:
Police interventions encompassing regular enforcement and visits by plain clothes officers aimed at promoting responsible alcohol service and at preventing driving while under the influence, and targeting servers in nightlife settings and licensed premises were found in a systematic review (Bolier, Voorham, Monshouwer, van Hasselt and Bellis, 2011) to lead to:
Combined enforcement checks and management training programmes were found in one study included in a systematic review (Bolier, Voorham, Monshouwer, van Hasselt and Bellis, 2011) to be effective in:
Policy interventions focused on implementation evaluated in a systematic review (Bolier, Voorham, Monshouwer, van Hasselt and Bellis, 2011) were found to lead to:
Drink-driving programmes targeting recreational settings encompassing compulsory training for all alcohol servers and owners/managers were found in a narrative review (Calafat, Juan and Duch, 2009) to lead to:
Mandated server training was found in two systematic reviews (Jones, Hughes, Atkinson and Bellis, 2010; Ker and Chinnock, 2008) and in a narrative review (EMCDDA, 2012), to lead to:
Alcohol server interventions were found in a systematic review (Bolier, Voorham, Monshouwer, van Hasselt and Bellis, 2011) to have significant effects in:
Promotion of sensible alcohol consumption and/or prevention injuries policy were found in narrative review (Calafat Juan and Duch, 2009) and in a systematic review (Ker and Chinnock, 2008) including 23 studies (RCT, 10 non-randomised controlled trials and 5 CBA) to be more effective than no intervention in:
Face to face server training, when accompanied by strong and active management support, assessed in two narrative and two systematic review (Calafat, Juan and Duch, 2009; EMCDDA, 2012; Bolier, Voorham, Monshouwer, van Hasselt, and Bellis, 2011; Jones, Hughes, Atkinson and Bellis, 2010) was found effective in:
Multi-component programmes combining: community mobilisation, responsible behaviour service training, house policies and stricter enforcement of licensing laws, were studied in a systematic review of studies (Jones, Hughes, Atkinson and Bellis, 2010), and were found to be potentially effective in:
A narrative review (Calafat, Juan and Duch, 2009) found some evidence suggesting that pub-watching schemes have a significant desirable effect on:
No interventions met the criteria for this category.
‘Designated driver’ programmes were found to have little evidence supporting their efficacy in two narrative reviews (Calafat, 2010; Calafat, Juan and Duch, 2009) in:
Programmes targeting drink-driving were found to have no impact on client behaviours in a systematic review (Jones, Hughes, Atkinson and Bellis, 2010), namely:
Programmes targeting drink-driving were found to have no impact on client behaviours in a systematic review (Jones, Hughes, Atkinson and Bellis, 2010), namely:
The effectiveness of interventions placing interlocks (mechanism that automatically prevents the car from launching under certain conditions) on the ignition to prevent an alcohol-impaired driver from operating the car (used with drink-driving offenders), was limited according to two narrative reviews (Calafat, 2010; Calafat, Juan and Duch, 2009):
Restricting opening hours was found to have no effect in a narrative review (Calafat, Juan and Duch, 2009) in:
The Sacramento Neighbourhood Alcohol Prevention Project (CCT focused on community mobilisation, community awareness, RBS and law enforcement in relation to under-age access to alcohol and intoxicated clients) showed no effects in a narrative review (EMCDDA, 2012) and in a systematic review (Jones, Hughes, Atkinson and Bellis, 2010) in:
Evidence for the effectiveness of police intervention or increased enforcement of licensing laws in reducing alcohol-related incidents was found in two systematic reviews (Jones, Hughes, Atkinson and Bellis, 2010; Bolier, Voorham, Monshouwer, van Hasselt and Bellis, 2011) and in a narrative review (EMCDDA, 2012) to be inconclusive regarding:
Information provision (e.g. prevention or harm reduction information material, such as brochures and pamphlets on intoxication and related harm) was not found to be an effective measure in a narrative review (EMCDDA, 2012) in:
Educational interventions were found in a systematic review (Bolier, Voorham, Monshouwer, van Hasselt and Bellis, 2011) to have no effects on:
Replacement of pint glasses with toughened glassware was found in two systematic reviews (Jones, Hughes, Atkinson and Bellis, 2010; Ker and Chinnock, 2008) to cause even more harm:
Electronic Age Verification devices (EAVs) were found not effective according to a narrative review (Calafat, Juan and Duch, 2009) in:
Below you can find definitions and further explanation for some of the terms used in this section of the Best practice portal. A more general glossary for the best practice portal is also available.
A type of prevention intervention which aims to they aim to modify inner qualities (personality traits such as self-esteem and self-efficacy, and motivational aspects such as the intention to use drugs).
Before-after (BA) study design
Blood alcohol level (BAL)
Interventions for which precise measures of the effects in favour of the type of intervention were found in systematic reviews of relevant studies. An intervention ranked as ‘beneficial’ is suitable for most patients/contexts. See the relevant module methodology page for further information.
Controlled before-after (CBA) study design. UCBA stands for Uncontrolled before-after study design.
Cognitive behavioral therapy is an individual based intervention occurring in three stages. Phase 1 is aimed at determining and prioritizing the patient’s problems and constructing the treatment contract. Phase 2 is aimed at increasing coping competence and reducing risky behaviors. Phase 3 focuses on relapse prevention. Each session is administered once per week over a period of 4-6 months with 60- to 90-minute sessions (Beck AT, Wright FW, Newman CF, Liese B. Cognitive Therapy of substance abuse. New York: Guilford Press, 1993).
Controlled clinical trials (CCT)
A cohort study is a type of observational study that follows a group of people (i.e. a cohort) over time. In a prospective cohort study, the cohort is formed and then followed over time. In a retrospective cohort study, data is gathered for a cohort that was formed sometime in the past.
The Confidence Interval (CI) is a measure of the precision (or uncertainty) of study results. It is the interval that most likely includes the true value of the parameter we are calculating, where 'most likely' is taken by common usage to be a 95% probability. Thus the current expression of '95 % CI'. A wide CI indicates less precise estimates of effect and vice versa.
Practical interpretation
Current population survey (CPS)
A cross-sectional study is a study employing a single point of data collection for each participant or system being studied.They are usually conducted to estimate the prevalence of the outcome of interest for a given population at a given point in time.
Interventions that gave negative results if compared with a standard intervention or no intervention, for example. See the relevant module methodology page for further information.
Additional information for prevention
For ethical reasons this category in prevention should be considered as interventions with negative and undesired (iatrogenic) effect.
Individual psychotherapy is a standard individual treatment based on counseling and motivational interviewing and focused on substance use triggers and strategies for relapse prevention. It includes elements of cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT).
Interquartile range (IQR) - also called the midspread or middle fifty - is a measure of statistical dispersion. It is a trimmed estimator, defined as the 25% trimmed mid-range, and is the most significant basic robust measure of scale.
Intermittent time series design (ITS)
Knowledge-focused prevention intervention
A type of prevention intervention which aims to to enhance knowledge of drugs, and drug effects, and consequences.
Interventions that were shown to have limited measures of effect, that are likely to be effective but for which evidence is limited. An intervention ranked as ‘likely to be beneficial’ is suitable for most contexts/patients, with some discretion. See the relevant module methodology page for further information.
The Number Needed to Treat (NNT)indicates the number of patients that needs to be treated to obtain one respondent patient. Numerically the NNT is the reciprocal of the difference between the proportion of events in the experimental and the comparison group (absolute risk reduction). Taking into consideration that the ideal NNT would be 1 (the unreal situation in which every single patient succeeded) it is easily understood that a NNT value close to 3 or 4 would be very good.
The Adjusted Odds Ratio is a way of comparing whether the probability of a certain event is the same between two groups, yet they are calculated adjusting for or controlling for other possible contributions from other variables (tipically demographic variables) in the model. An AOR equal to 1 implies that the the event is equally probable in both groups. An AOR greater than 1 implies that the event is more likely in the first group. An AOR less than 1 implies that the event is less likely in the first group.
The Odds Ratio is a way of comparing whether the probability of a certain event is the same between two groups. Like the Relative Risk, an OR equal to 1 implies that the the event is equally probable in both groups. A OR greater than 1 implies that the event is more likely in the first group. A OR less than 1 implies that the event is less likely in the first group. In medical research, the odds ratio is commonly used for case-control studies, as odds, but not probabilities, are usually estimated. Relative risk is used in randomized controlled trials and cohort studies.
A p-value is a measure of how much evidence we have against the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis represents the hypothesis of no change or no effect. The smaller the p-value, the more evidence we have against the null hypothesis thus it is more likely that our sample result is true. Traditionally, researchers will reject a null hypothesis if the p-value is less than 0.05.
Responsible beverage service (RBS)
Randomised controlled trial (RCT)
The Relative Risk (RR) is used to compare the risk in the two different groups of people, i.e. treated and control groups to see if belonging to one group or another increases or decreases the risk of developing certain outcomes. This measure of effect will tell us the number of times an outcome is more likely (RR > 1) or less likely (RR < 1) to happen in the treatment group compared with the control group.
Practical interpretation
Interventions that obtained measures of effects in favour of the intervention, but that showed some limitations or unintended effects that need to be assessed before providing them. See the relevant module methodology page for further information.
Interventions for which there are not enough studies or where available studies are of low quality (with few patients or with uncertain methodological rigour), making it difficult to assess if they are effective or not. Interventions for which more research should be undertaken are also grouped in this category.
Additional information for prevention
For prevention interventions, this is also known as 'zero effect'.
A type of prevention intervention which aims to enhance students’ abilities in generic skills, refusal skills and safety skills.
The Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) is the difference in means divided by a standard deviation. Note that it is not the standard error of the difference in means (a common confusion). The standardized mean difference has the important property that its value does not depend on the measurement scale. It may be useful if there are several trials assessing the same outcome, but using different scales.
The z-score (aka, a standard score) indicates how many standard deviations an element is from the mean of the population.
Prevention interventions can target patrons of bars, pubs, nightclubs, discotheques, music festivals, rave parties and other recreational settings, as well as staff and other relevant stakeholders. Attending recreational settings has an effect on the networking and social life of young people and data indicate that recreational venues are risk enhancing settings.
The increased mobility and globalisation of the entertainment industry makes it necessary to address potential substance abuse (e.g., alcohol, illicit drugs) in recreational settings, both at national and international level.
Interventions can be designed to tackle the problem at different levels
Different approaches can be combined together into multi-component programmes.
The main aim of prevention interventions targeting recreational settings is to reduce the health and social risks (including driving harms) associated with the potential use of alcohol and illicit drugs in such settings.
EMCDDA
Other