Alcohol School Based Interventions

Alcohol: school-based interv
interventions
entions
Public health guideline
Published: 28 November 2007
nice.org.uk/guidance/ph7
NICE 2007. All rights reserved.
School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)
Contents
Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4
1 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
School-based education and advice ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Partnerships ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2 Public health need and practice................................................................................................................................. 9

Factors that may influence alcohol use among children and young people ............................................................. 10
Policy background ........................................................................................................................................................................... 10
3 Considerations..................................................................................................................................................................12
General issues.................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Education ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
Evidence............................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
4 Implementation................................................................................................................................................................16
5 Recommendations for research ................................................................................................................................17
6 Updating the recommendations ...............................................................................................................................18
7 Related NICE guidance..................................................................................................................................................19
Published ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 19
Under development ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19
8 References..........................................................................................................................................................................20
Appendix A: membership of the Public Health Interventions Advisory Committee (PHIAC), the
NICE Project Team and external contractors ..........................................................................................................22
Public Health Interventions Advisory Committee (PHIAC) ........................................................................................... 22
NICE Project Team .......................................................................................................................................................................... 24
External contractors ....................................................................................................................................................................... 25
Appendix B: summary of the methods used to develop this guidance...........................................................26

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 26
The guidance development process ......................................................................................................................................... 26
Key questions .................................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Page 2 of 41
Reviewing the evidence of effectiveness ............................................................................................................................... 27

Economic appraisal.......................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Fieldwork............................................................................................................................................................................................. 32
How PHIAC formulated the recommendations .................................................................................................................. 33
Appendix C: the evidence ...............................................................................................................................................34

Evidence statements ...................................................................................................................................................................... 34
Cost-effectiveness evidence ...................................................................................................................................................... 35
Fieldwork findings .......................................................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix D: gaps in the evidence.................................................................................................................................37

Appendix E: supporting documents.............................................................................................................................39
Changes after publication................................................................................................................................................40
About this guidance............................................................................................................................................................41
Page 3 of 41
This guideline is the basis of QS83.
Introduction
The Department of Health (DH) asked the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
(NICE or the Institute) to produce public health guidance for use in primary and secondary schools
on sensible alcohol consumption.
The guidance also covers pupil referral units, secure training units, local authority secure units and
further education colleges.
It is for teachers, school governors and practitioners with health and wellbeing as part of their
remit, working in education, local authorities, the NHS and the wider public, voluntary and
community sectors. It may also be of interest to children and young people, their families and other
members of the public.
The Public Health Interventions Advisory Committee (PHIAC) has considered a review of the
evidence, an economic appraisal, stakeholder comments and the results of fieldwork in developing
these recommendations. Details of PHIAC membership are given in appendix A. The methods used
to develop the guidance are summarised in appendix B. Supporting documents used in the
preparation of this document are listed in appendix E. Full details of the evidence collated, including
fieldwork data and stakeholder comments, are available on the NICE website, along with a list of
the stakeholders involved and the Institute's supporting process and methods manuals.
Page 4 of 41
Recommendations
This document constitutes the Institute's formal guidance on interventions in schools to prevent
and reduce alcohol use among children and young people. It also looks at how to link these
interventions with community initiatives, including those run by children's services.
The evidence statements that underpin the recommendations are listed in appendix C.
There are no national guidelines on what constitutes safe and sensible alcohol consumption for
children and young people, so the recommendations focus on: encouraging children not to drink,
delaying the age at which young people start drinking and reducing the harm it can cause among
those who do drink.
Practitioners will need to use their professional judgement to determine the type of content
needed for education programmes aimed at different groups. They will also need to judge whether
or not a child or young person is drinking 'harmful amounts of alcohol'.
For the purposes of this guidance, schools include:
state-sector, special and independent primary and secondary schools
city technology colleges, academies and grammar schools
pupil referral units, secure training and local authority secure units
further education colleges.
School-based education and advice

Recommendation 1
Who is the target population?
Children and young people in schools.
Who should tak

takee action?
Head teachers, teachers, school governors and others who work in (or with) schools including:
school nurses, counsellors, healthy school leads, personal, social and health education (PSHE)
Page 5 of 41
coordinators in primary schools and personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education
coordinators in secondary schools.
What action should they tak

take?
e?
Ensure alcohol education is an integral part of the national science, PSHE and PSHE education
curricula, in line with Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) guidance.
Ensure alcohol education is tailored for different age groups and takes different learning needs
into account (based, for example, on individual, social and environmental factors). It should aim
to encourage children not to drink, delay the age at which young people start drinking and
reduce the harm it can cause among those who do drink. Education programmes should:
increase knowledge of the potential damage alcohol use can cause physically, mentally
and socially (including the legal consequences)
provide the opportunity to explore attitudes to and perceptions of alcohol use
help develop decision-making, assertiveness, coping and verbal/non-verbal skills
help develop self-esteem
increase awareness of how the media, advertisements, role models and the views of
parents, peers and society can influence alcohol consumption.
Introduce a 'whole school' approach to alcohol, in line with DCSF guidance. It should involve
staff, parents and pupils and cover everything from policy development and the school
environment to the professional development of (and support for) staff.
Where appropriate, offer parents or carers information about where they can get help to
develop their parenting skills. (This includes problem-solving and communication skills, and
advice on setting boundaries for their children and teaching them how to resist peer pressure.)
Recommendation 2
Children and young people in schools who are thought to be drinking harmful amounts of alcohol.
Who should tak

takee action?
Teachers, school nurses and school counsellors.
Page 6 of 41

take?
e?
Where appropriate, offer brief, one-to-one advice on the harmful effects of alcohol use, how to
reduce the risks and where to find sources of support. Offer a follow-up consultation or make a
referral to external services, where necessary.
Where appropriate, make a direct referral to external services (without providing one-to-one
advice).
Follow best practice on child protection, consent and confidentiality. Where appropriate,
involve parents or carers in the consultation and any referral to external services.
Partnerships
Recommendation 3
Children and young people in schools.
Who should tak

takee action?
Head teachers, school governors, healthy school leads and school nurses.
Extended school services, children's services (including the Children's Trust/children and
young people's strategic partnership), primary care trusts (PCTs), drug and alcohol action
teams, crime disorder reduction partnerships, youth services, drug and alcohol services, the
police and organisations in the voluntary and community sectors.

take?
e?
Maintain and develop partnerships to:
support alcohol education in schools as part of the national science, PSHE and PSHE education
curricula
ensure school interventions on alcohol use are integrated with community activities
introduced as part of the 'Children and young people's plan'
find ways to consult with families (parents or carers, children and young people) about
initiatives to reduce alcohol use and to involve them in those initiatives
Page 7 of 41
monitor and evaluate partnership working and incorporate good practice into planning.
Page 8 of 41
Public health need and pr

practice
actice
Alcohol use among children and young people is growing faster than the use of any other drug in
the UK and it causes the most widespread problems. Alcohol is also the least regulated and most
heavily marketed drug (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs 2006).
The number of children and young people aged 1115 who drink alcohol has fallen since 2001.
However, those who do drink alcohol consume more and more often (HM Government 2007). In
2006, 21% of those aged 1115 who had drunk alcohol in the previous week consumed an average
11.4 units up from 5.3 units in 1990. Drinking prevalence increased with age: 3% of pupils aged
11 had drunk alcohol in the previous week compared with 41% of those aged 15 (The Information
Centre for Health and Social Care 2007).
Children and young people aged 1115 who regularly smoke or drink are much more likely than
non-smokers and non-drinkers to use other drugs (Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs 2006).
In 2003 in the UK, 8% of young people aged 1516 reported having unprotected sex after drinking
alcohol (11% females, 6% males). Eleven per cent of all those in this age group who had
(unprotected or protected) sex as a result of drinking alcohol subsequently regretted it (12%
females, 9% males) (Hibbell et al. 2004).
In 2000 in Britain, nearly 14% of young people aged 1619 were estimated to be either mildly
(12.4%) or moderately (1.4%) dependent on alcohol, that is, they scored more than 4 on the
'Severity of alcohol dependence questionnaire' (SADQ) (Singleton et al. 2000).
An analysis of data from the 1970 British birth cohort study (Viner and Taylor 2007) found that
17% of adolescent binge drinkers were dependent on alcohol at age 30 (compared to 11% of the
remaining cohort); 43% exceeded the recommended weekly limits (compared to 30% of the
remaining cohort); 24% were taking illicit drugs (compared to 16% of the remaining cohort).
Regular, heavy alcohol consumption and binge drinking are associated with physical health
problems, anti-social behaviour, violence, accidents, suicide, injuries and road traffic accidents.
Alcohol consumption can also have an impact on school performance and crime rates (British
Medical Association 2007).
Excessive alcohol consumption among adults is associated with 15,000 to 22,000 premature
deaths annually. In 2005, 4160 people in England and Wales died from alcoholic liver disease (HM
Government 2007).
Page 9 of 41
The risk of liver disease and conditions such as high blood pressure, coronary heart disease and
stroke are significantly higher for adults who exceed the recommended limits on alcohol
consumption (HM Government 2007).
In 200506, over 2500 children aged 014 years were admitted to hospital in England with a
primary, alcohol-related diagnosis (The Information Centre for Health and Social Care 2006).
Factors that may influence alcohol use among children and young people
One or more of the following factors are common among children and young people who use drugs
of any sort, including alcohol:
Drug or alcohol misuse by parents or older siblings.
Family conflict or poor and inconsistent parenting.
Poor school attendance and poor educational attainment.
Pre-existing behavioural problems.
Living with a single or step-parent, being looked after or homeless.
(Adapted from Institute of Alcohol Studies factsheet 2007.)
Policy background
Numerous government strategies and policies aim to prevent or reduce alcohol use among children
and young people under 18 (see below).
The 'Alcohol harm-reduction strategy for England' (Prime Minister's Strategy Unit 2004) and
its update (HM Government 2007) say that schools should provide alcohol education as part of
their citizenship, PSHE and PSHE education programmes. It is acknowledged that informationgiving alone is unlikely to reduce consumption and interactive programmes are encouraged to
develop the individual's personal skills.
'Drugs guidance for schools' (Department for Education and Skills 2004) states that drugs
education is part of the statutory national science curriculum and should start in primary
school. It also recommends that drugs education should be delivered in PSHE, PSHE education
and citizenship classes.
Page 10 of 41
Alcohol education is an integral part of PSHE and PSHE education which, in turn, is a core part
of the National Healthy Schools Programme. The National Healthy Schools Programme adopts
a 'whole school' approach to physical and emotional wellbeing ('National healthy school status
a guide for schools' [Department for Education and Skills 2005]).
'The drugs strategy' (Home Office 2002) recognises the important role that schools can play in
preventing and reducing drug use and its related harms.
'Choosing health: making healthier choices easier' (DH 2004a) stresses the need to raise
awareness of the health risks associated with alcohol.
'The national service framework for children, young people and maternity services. Core
standards' (DH 2004b) states that all agencies should identify children and young people at
risk of misusing drugs or alcohol and provide them with prevention and treatment services.
Local authority children's services, health bodies (including PCTs), schools, the police and other
agencies are expected to develop and deliver the 'Children and young people's plan' by defining
how the five outcomes from 'Every child matters' will be met. This is part of their statutory
obligation to cooperate to improve the wellbeing of children in their area (HM Government
2004a; 2004b).
'Every child matters: change for children. Young people and drugs' (HM Government 2005)
sets out how local authorities should prevent and reduce drug use among children and young
people. Average alcohol consumption among children and young people is identified as a DH
outcome indicator in 'Every child matters: change for children' (HM Government 2004b)
The number of young people misusing substances (including alcohol) is one of the new set of
national indicators that will be used to monitor the performance of local authorities and their
partners. This follows publication of the 2007 comprehensive spending review (HM Treasury
2007) and 'The new performance framework for local authorities and local authority
partnerships' (Department for Communities and Local Government 2007). From April 2008,
local authorities will be required to negotiate local area agreements (LAAs) comprising up to
35 targets (plus statutory targets for early years and educational attainment) derived from this
set of indicators. (They will also be free to agree local targets reflecting important local
concerns.)
Page 11 of 41
Consider
Considerations
ations
PHIAC took account of a number of factors and issues in making the recommendations.
General issues
3.1
Under UK law, children and young people can consume different types of
alcohol in different contexts, depending on their age. For instance, young people
aged 16 or 17 may consume beer, cider or wine with a meal when under adult
supervision on licensed premises. In all other circumstances, it is illegal for
anyone under 18 to 'knowingly' consume alcohol on licensed premises, or to buy
or attempt to buy alcohol. It is important that schools take this legal framework
into account when planning and delivering alcohol education and when
developing partnerships to tackle alcohol issues (within and outside schools).
3.2
Different countries favour different approaches to alcohol education. For

example, alcohol use is considered normal for a large proportion of the
population in the UK where a 'harm reduction' approach is favoured for young
people. By contrast in the US, where most of the research on school-based
interventions comes from, abstinence is encouraged among children and young
people.
3.3
The renewed national alcohol strategy suggests that, 'more needs to be done to
promote sensible drinking'. Sensible drinking for adults is described as 'drinking
in a way that is unlikely to cause yourself or others significant risk of harm' (HM
Government 2007).
3.4
There is no consensus about what constitutes safe and sensible levels of

drinking for children and young people. In 2008, the government plans to
provide guidance about 'what is and what is not safe and sensible in the light of
the latest available evidence from the UK and abroad' (HM Government 2007).
PHIAC did not, therefore, consider it part of its remit to define these levels.
3.5
In the absence of guidance on safe and sensible levels of alcohol consumption,

PHIAC focused on encouraging children not to drink, delaying the age at which
young people start drinking and reducing the harm it can cause among those
who do drink. The second recommendation acknowledges that some young
people may already be drinking harmful amounts of alcohol.
Page 12 of 41
3.6
A number of social, cultural and economic factors have an influence on alcohol

consumption among children, young people and parents. These include peer
pressure, the alcohol industry, the media, and the availability and cost of alcohol.
Education
3.7
While schools have an important role to play in combating harmful drinking,

PHIAC acknowledged that they are limited in terms of what they can achieve
(see 3.6 above).
3.8
The recommendations for schools are in line with existing guidance from the
DCSF (Department for Education and Skills 2004). They support the National
Healthy Schools Programme's 'whole school' approach (Department for
Education and Skills 2005). They also support standards one, four, five (DH
2004b) and nine of the 'National service framework for children, young people
and maternity services' (DH 2004c).
3.9
The recommendations support implementation of 'Every child matters: change

for children' (HM Government 2004b). This outlines a common assessment
framework (CAF) or process to help professionals identify children and young
people with specific needs (including those who are misusing alcohol). When a
child or young person requires support, 'Every chiId matters: change for
children' recommends that these services should be coordinated by a lead
professional.
3.10
The new PSHE and PSHE education curricula, which are being introduced from
September 2008, move away from an emphasis on content and instead promote
concepts such as 'healthy lifestyles'. They should be tailored to meet individual
needs. Alcohol education involves promoting a healthy lifestyle as excessive
alcohol use is linked to a range of health and social problems (see section 2).
3.11
PHIAC acknowledged that alcohol use is the cultural norm among most adults in
the UK. Some people believe it is normal and acceptable for young people under
18 to drink. Some individuals and groups find alcohol use among any age group
unacceptable. It is important to take individual, social, cultural, economic and
religious factors into account when delivering alcohol education programmes.
Page 13 of 41
3.12
While some individuals may be more vulnerable than others (see section 2), it is
inappropriate only to focus on those individuals. Children and young people
from all backgrounds and in all types of school may drink harmful amounts of
alcohol.
3.13
Those delivering alcohol education programmes need to have the trust and
respect of the children and young people involved. They should have received
validated training and be able to provide accurate information using appropriate
techniques.
3.14
Work with children and young people who use alcohol may lead to
confidentiality issues. Where a child or young person requires individual
guidance and support, best practice guidelines on consent and confidentiality
should be followed (DH 2001). Children and young people should be
encouraged to involve their parents or carers and the best interests of the child
or young person should be the primary concern. This is in line with the duty to
safeguard and promote the welfare of pupils, imposed on all schools and
colleges of further education under the Education Act 2002 and Children Act
1989 (HM Government 2006).
Evidence
3.15
The evidence on school-based interventions was not extensive and, as most of it

was US-based, it has to be applied with caution. Common shortcomings include:
non-validated surrogate outcome measures that are not relevant to English policy
uncertainty whether studies were large enough to detect differences between groups
inappropriate analyses for the study design used
analyses which did not take baseline imbalances into account
high attrition rates.
Nevertheless, PHIAC considered that some evidence was of sufficient quality and
sufficiently applicable to England to inform the recommendations.
3.16
Due to the limitations of the evidence, it was not possible to determine the
differential effectiveness of the interventions in relation to disadvantaged and
Page 14 of 41
minority groups. In addition, it was not possible to determine what impact the
recommendations may have on health inequalities.
3.17
As alcohol use is a sensitive issue associated with social values, self-reported

data may be biased.
3.18
The economic analysis carried out to determine whether or not an intervention

was cost effective in the long term was subject to uncertainties.
3.19
A number of studies evaluated the input of external contributors to school

alcohol education programmes. However, there was a lack of evidence about
which type of contribution worked best. The literature focused mainly on
'stand-alone' interventions (rather than those contributing to teacher-led
programmes, or giving advice and support to schools). In addition, these studies
had limited cultural relevance for England. As a result, PHIAC was unable to
make any recommendations about the use of external contributors in schools.
3.20
The recommended interventions were not compared with other types of

intervention because it was beyond the remit of this guidance to make such a
comparison. (Examples of other types of intervention aimed at preventing or
reducing alcohol use include targeted and indicated activities and those taking
place outside educational establishments.)
3.21
Forthcoming NICE guidance on PSHE and PSHE education, with reference to

sexual health behaviour and alcohol (due September 2009) may lead to
additional recommendations on this topic.
Page 15 of 41
Implementation
NICE guidance can help:

NHS organisations meet DH standards for public health as set out in the seventh domain of
'Standards for better health' (updated in 2006). Performance against these standards is
assessed by the Healthcare Commission, and forms part of the annual health check score
awarded to local healthcare organisations.
Local authorities (including social care and children's services) and NHS organisations meet the
requirements of the government's 'National standards, local action, health and social care
standards and planning framework 20052008'.
Provide a focus for children's trusts, health and wellbeing partnerships and other multi-sector
partnerships working on health within a local strategic partnership.
Support schools aiming for healthy school status.
National and local organisations within the public sector meet government indicators and
targets to improve health and reduce health inequalities.
Local authorities fulfill their remit to promote the economic, social and environmental
wellbeing of communities.
Local NHS organisations, local authorities and other local public sector partners benefit from
any identified cost savings, disinvestment opportunities or opportunities for re-directing
resources.
NICE has developed tools to help organisations implement this guidance. For details, see our
website.
Page 16 of 41
Recommendations for research
PHIAC recommends that the following research questions should be addressed in order to improve
the evidence relating to interventions in schools to prevent and reduce alcohol use among children
and young people.
In relation to universal interventions delivered in English schools to prevent and reduce
alcohol use among children and young people:
How does effectiveness and cost effectiveness vary according to: the setting (for
example, state sector schools, pupil referral units, further education colleges); who
delivers the intervention (for example, teachers, peers); the target group (for example,
in terms of age, gender, and those who engage in risky behaviour).
What is the best way to ensure universal alcohol interventions do not lead to some
children and young people increasing their intake of alcohol?
How do the following factors influence effectiveness and cost effectiveness: method of
delivery (for example, session format, learning materials); content; frequency and
duration of follow-ups; and parental/carer involvement?
How does effectiveness and cost effectiveness vary according to whether an intervention is
delivered alone or as part of a wider substance misuse intervention?
What are the most effective and cost effective ways of identifying children and young people
in schools who are at significant risk from drinking harmful amounts of alcohol?
What is the best way to ensure universal alcohol interventions carried out in schools meet the
needs of children and young people who are disadvantaged or from a minority group?
What is the incidence, prevalence and consequence of:
short-term health and non-health-related outcomes resulting from alcohol use in
childhood and adolescence (for example, absence from school, violence)?
attributable long-term health and non-health outcomes (for example, poor academic
achievement, convictions, violence, adult socioeconomic status)?
Page 17 of 41
Updating the recommendations
NICE public health guidance is updated as needed so that recommendations take into account
important new information. We check for new evidence 2 and 4 years after publication, to decide
whether all or part of the guidance should be updated. If important new evidence is published at
other times, we may decide to update some recommendations at that time.
Page 18 of 41
Related NICE guidance
Published
Community-based interventions to reduce substance misuse among vulnerable and disadvantaged
children and young people. NICE public health guidance 4 (2007).
Social and emotional wellbeing in primary education. NICE public health guidance 12 (2008).
Prevent the uptake of smoking by children and young people. NICE public health guidance 14
(2008).
Social and emotional wellbeing in secondary education. NICE public health guidance 20 (2009).
Alcohol use disorders: preventing harmful drinking. NICE public health guidance 24 (2009).
Alcohol-use disorders: diagnosis, assessment and management of harmful drinking and alcohol
dependence. NICE clinical guideline 115 (2011).
Under development
School, college and community-based personal, social and health education, focusing on sexual
health and alcohol. NICE public health guidance [Suspended].
Page 19 of 41
References
Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (2006) Pathways to problems: hazardous use of tobacco,
alcohol and other drugs by young people in the UK and its implications for policy. London: Advisory
Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
British Medical Association (2007) Alcohol misuse.
Department for Communities and Local Government (2007) The new performance framework for
local authorities and local authority partnerships: single set of national indicators. London:
Department for Communities and Local Government.
Department for Education and Skills (2004) Drugs guidance for schools. London: Department for
Education and Skills.
Department for Education and Skills (2005) National healthy school status a guide for schools.
London: Department of Health.
Department of Health (2001) Seeking consent: working with children. London: Department of
Health.
Department of Health (2004a) Choosing health: making healthier choices easier. London:
Department of Health.
Department of Health (2004b) National service framework for children, young people and
maternity services. Core standards. London: Department of Health.
Department of Health (2004c) National service framework for children, young people and
maternity services. The mental health and psychological well-being of children and young people.
Hibbell B, Andersson B, Bjarnason T et al. (2004) The ESPAD report 2003: alcohol and other drug
use among students in 35 European countries. Stockholm: The Swedish Council for Information on
Alcohol and Other Drugs.
HM Government (2004a) The children act 2004. London: The Stationery Office.
Page 20 of 41
HM Government (2004b) Every child matters: change for children. London: Department for
Education and Skills.
HM Government (2005) Every child matters: change for children. Young people and drugs. London:
Department for Education and Skills.
HM Government (2006) Working together to safeguard children. A guide to inter-agency working
to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. London: The Stationery Office.
HM Government (2007) Safe. Sensible. Social. The next steps in the national alcohol strategy.
HM Treasury (2007) Meeting the aspirations of the British people: 2007 pre-budget report and
comprehensive spending review. Annex C public service agreements. London: The Stationery
Office.
Home Office (2002) Updated drug strategy 2002. London: Home Office.
Institute of Alcohol Studies (2007) Adolescents and alcohol factsheet.
Prime Minister's Strategy Unit (2004) Alcohol harm-reduction strategy for England. London: Prime
Minister's Strategy Unit.
Singleton N, Bumpstead R, O'Brien M et al. (2000) Psychiatric morbidity among adults living in
private households. London: The Stationery Office.
The Information Centre for Health and Social Care (2006) Hospital episode statistics.
The Information Centre for Health and Social Care (2007) Smoking, drinking and drug use among
young people in England in 2006: headline figures. London: The Information Centre for Health and
Social Care.
Viner RM, Taylor B (2007) Adult outcomes of binge drinking in adolescence: findings from a UK
national birth cohort. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 61: 902907.
Page 21 of 41
Appendix A: membership of the Public Health Interv

Interventions
entions Advisory
Committee (PHIA
(PHIAC),
C), the NICE Project T
Team
eam and e
external
xternal contr
contractors
actors
Public Health Interventions Advisory Committee (PHIAC)
NICE has set up a standing committee, the Public Health Interventions Advisory Committee
(PHIAC), which reviews the evidence and develops recommendations on public health
interventions. Membership of PHIAC is multi-disciplinary, comprising public health practitioners,
clinicians (both specialists and generalists), local authority employees, representatives of the
public, patients and/or carers, academics and technical experts, as follows.
Professor Sue Atkinson CBE Independent Consultant and Visiting Professor in the Department of
Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London
Mr John Bark
Barker
er Associate Foundation Stage Regional Adviser for the Parents as Partners in Early
Learning Project, DfES National Strategies
Professor Michael Bury Emeritus Professor of Sociology, University of London and Honorary
Professor of Sociology, University of Kent
Professor Simon Capewell Chair of Clinical Epidemiology, University of Liverpool
Professor K K Cheng Professor of Epidemiology, University of Birmingham
Ms Joanne Cook
Cooke
e Director, Trent Research and Development Support Unit (RDSU), University of
Sheffield
Dr Richard Cookson Senior Lecturer, Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of
York
Mr Philip Cutler Forums Support Manager, Bradford Alliance on Community Care
Professor Brian F
Ferguson
erguson Director of the Yorkshire and Humber Public Health Observatory
Mr Howard Gilfillan Former Head Teacher, Branksome Comprehensive School, Darlington
Professor Ruth Hall Regional Director, Health Protection Agency, South West
Page 22 of 41
Mr Alasdair Hogarth Head Teacher, Archbishops School, Canterbury

Ms Amanda Hoe
Hoeyy Director, Consumer Health Consulting Limited
Mr Andrew Hopkin Assistant Director, Local Environment, Derby City Council
Dr Ann Hoskins Deputy Regional Director of Public Health, NHS North West
Ms Muriel James Secretary for the Northampton Healthy Communities Collaborative and the King
Edward Road Surgery Patient Participation Group
Professor Da
David
vid R Jones Professor of Medical Statistics, Department of Health Sciences, University
of Leicester
Dr Matt K
Kearne
earneyy General Practitioner, Castlefields, Runcorn and GP Public Health Practitioner,
Knowsley
Ms V
Valerie
alerie King Designated Nurse for Looked After Children for Northampton PCT, Daventry and
South Northants PCT and Northampton General Hospital. Public Health Skills Development Nurse,
Northampton PCT
CHAIR Professor Catherine La
Law
w Professor of Public Health and Epidemiology, University College
London Institute of Child Health
Ms Sharon McAteer Public Health Development Manager, Halton and St Helens PCT
Mr Da
David
vid McDaid Research Fellow, Health and Social Care and Personal Social Services Research
Unit (PSSRU), London School of Economics and Political Science
Professor Klim McPherson Visiting Professor of Public Health Epidemiology, Department of
Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Oxford
Professor Susan Michie Professor of Health Psychology, BPS Centre for Outcomes Research &
Effectiveness, University College London
Dr Mik
Mike
e Owen General Practitioner, William Budd Health Centre, Bristol
Ms Jane Putse
Putseyy Lay Representative. Chair of Trustees of the Breastfeeding Network
Page 23 of 41
Dr Mik
Mike
e Ra
Rayner
yner Director of British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group,
Department of Public Health, University of Oxford
Mr Dale Robinson Chief Environmental Health Officer, South Cambridgeshire District Council
Ms Jo
Joyyce Rothschild School Improvement Adviser, Solihull Local Authority
Dr T
Trrace
aceyy Sach Senior Lecturer in Health Economics, University of East Anglia
Professor Mark Sculpher Professor of Health Economics, Centre for Economics (CHE), University
of York
Dr Da
David
vid Sloan Retired Director of Public Health
Dr Dagmar Z
Zeuner
euner Joint Director of Public Health, Hammersmith and Fulham PCT
Expert cooptees to PHIA

PHIAC:
C:
Mrs Joan Harris School Nurse, Bath and North East Somerset PCT
Ms Sar
Sarah
ah Smart Development Manager, PSHE Subject Association
Expert testimon
testimonyy to PHIA
PHIAC:
C:
Professor Ian Gilmore President, Royal College of Physicians
Mr Andrew McNeill Director, Institute of Alcohol Studies
Ms Rhian Stone Independent Public Policy Consultant
Dr Linda Wright Alcohol Health Promotion Researcher and Writer
NICE Project Team

Professor Mik
Mike
eK
Kelly
elly
CPHE Director
Simon Ellis
Associate Director
Page 24 of 41
Dr LLouise
ouise Millwards
Lead Analyst
Dr Hilary Chatterton
Analyst
Dr Una Canning
Analyst
Dr Caroline Mulvihill
Analyst
Dr Bhash Naidoo
Technical Adviser (Health Economics)
External contractors
External re
reviewers
viewers
The National Collaborating Centre for Drug Prevention (NCCDP) at Liverpool John Moores
University (LJMU) carried out the effectiveness review. The authors were: Lisa Jones, Tom
Jefferson, Clare Lushey, Michela Morleo, Harry Sumnall, Karl Witty and Mark Bellis.
The Centre for Health Planning and Management at the University of Keele carried out the
economic appraisal. The authors were: Marilyn James and Elizabeth Stokes.
Both reports were amalgamated into one document.
Fieldwork
The fieldwork was carried out by the NCCDP at LJMU, in conjunction with HIT, a Merseyside-based
training and health promotion organisation.
Page 25 of 41
Appendix B: summary of the methods used to de

devvelop this guidance
Introduction
The report of the review and economic appraisal includes full details of the methods used to select
the evidence (including search strategies), assess its quality and summarise it.
The minutes of the PHIAC meetings provide further detail about the Committee's interpretation of
the evidence and development of the recommendations.
All supporting documents are listed in appendix E and are available from the NICE website.
The guidance development process

The stages of the guidance development process are outlined in the box below.
1. Draft scope
2. Stakeholder meeting
3. Stakeholder comments
4. Final scope and responses published on website
5. Reviews and cost-effectiveness modelling
6. Synopsis report of the evidence (executive summaries and evidence tables) circulated to
stakeholders for comment
7. Comments and additional material submitted by stakeholders
8. Review of additional material submitted by stakeholders (screened against inclusion criteria
used in reviews)
9. Synopsis, full reviews, supplementary reviews and economic modelling submitted to PHIAC
10. PHIAC produces draft recommendations
11. Draft recommendations published on website for comment by stakeholders and for field
testing
12. PHIAC amends recommendations
13. Responses to comments published on website
14. Final guidance published on website
Page 26 of 41
Key questions
The key questions were established as part of the scope. They formed the starting point for the
review of evidence and facilitated the development of recommendations by PHIAC. The
overarching question was:
What are the most effective and cost-effective school-based interventions to prevent or reduce
alcohol use among pupils?
The following subsidiary questions were considered:
What type of content works best (for example, should it focus on the harmful effects to health,
legal issues or the social consequences of alcohol use)?
Is it better for the intervention to be delivered by a generalist, a specialist or someone else (for
example, the police, a peer or a drug worker)?
What are the most cost-effective and appropriate interventions for different groups of young
people (for example, males and females, different age groups, different social classes and
different ethnic groups)?
Does the intervention lead to any adverse or unintended effects (for example, an increase in
alcohol consumption)?
What factors might inhibit or facilitate implementation (for example, parents' views)?
Reviewing the evidence of effectiveness

One review of effectiveness was conducted.
Identifying the e
evidence
vidence
The following databases were searched for systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials
(RCTs), non-RCTs, and controlled before and after studies published since 1990:
ASSIA (Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts)
CINAHL
Cochrane Library (CDSR, DARE, HTA and CCTR)
Page 27 of 41
EMBASE
EPPI-Centre databases
ERIC
ETOH
Health Management Information Consortium
MEDLINE
National Guidelines Clearing House
National Research Register
Project Cork
PsycINFO
SIGLE
SOMED
SPECTR (Campbell Collaboration Trials Registry)
Web of Science (Science and Social Sciences citation indexes).
The following websites were searched:
Alcohol and Education Research Council
Alcohol Concern
Department for Education and Skills
Department of Health
Drugscope.
In addition, information on current practice in English schools at a local and regional level was
sought via Healthy Schools and DAAT coordinators. Further details of the search terms and
strategies are included in the review report.
Page 28 of 41
Selection criteria
Studies were included if they:
involved children and young people under 18 years old
were undertaken in primary and secondary state-sector maintained schools, city technology
colleges, academies, grammar, non-maintained special and independent schools or pupil
referral, secure training and local authority secure units, or further education settings
examined interventions in schools which aimed to prevent or reduce alcohol use, including:
lessons delivered by teachers or other professionals as part of a classroom-based
curriculum
peer-led education by other pupils
external contributions (for example, from the police, theatre in education (TIE)
organisations and life education centres)
implementation of school policies
activities carried out as part of the informal curriculum (for example, learning
experiences in assembly/collective worship and parent evenings)
compared the intervention with a control or with another approach
reported changes in alcohol-related behaviour, including:
percentage who reported drinking alcohol (lifetime, monthly or weekly use)
amount of drinking and its frequency
age at which children/young people first drank alcohol
unsupervised alcohol use.
Studies were excluded if they examined interventions:
aimed at children and young people who did not attend any of the types of schools listed
above, for example, those in secure institutions or receiving home education
without a school-based component, including:
Page 29 of 41
'server' and 'responsible beverage service' (RBS) training, media campaigns and
diversionary activities delivered in the wider community
regulatory schemes such as taxation, restrictions on alcohol sales and advertising, proof
of age schemes and warning labels
drink-driving schemes and driver training
treatment of alcohol misuse or alcohol dependence, including psychosocial
interventions.
Quality appr
appraisal
aisal
Included papers were assessed for methodological rigour and quality using the NICE methodology
checklist, as set out in the NICE technical manual 'Methods for development of NICE public health
guidance' (see appendix E). Each study was described by study type and graded (++, +, -) to reflect
the risk of potential bias arising from its design and execution.
Study type
Meta-analyses, systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or RCTs (including
cluster RCTs).
Systematic reviews of, or individual controlled non-randomised trials (CNRT), case-control
studies, cohort studies, controlled before-and-after (CBA) studies, interrupted time series
(ITS) studies, correlation studies.
Non-analytical studies (for example, case reports and case series).
Expert opinion, formal consensus.
Study quality
++ All or most criteria have been fulfilled. Where they have not been fulfilled the conclusions are
thought very unlikely to alter.
+ Some criteria fulfilled. Those criteria that have not been fulfilled or not adequately described are
thought unlikely to alter the conclusions.
- Few or no criteria fulfilled. The conclusions of the study are thought likely or very likely to alter.
Page 30 of 41
The main reasons for studies being assessed as (-) were:

limited reporting of methodological details such as methods of random assignment
high level of participant attrition
lack of detail about baseline equivalence of intervention and control groups.
The interventions were also assessed for their applicability to the UK and the evidence statements
were graded as follows:
A. harm-reduction approach and likely to be applicable across a broad range of settings and
populations
B. harm-reduction approach and likely to be applicable across a broad range of settings and
populations, assuming they are appropriately adapted
C. harm-reduction approach but applicable only to settings or populations included in the studies
broader applicability is uncertain, or approach unclear
D. clear abstinence approach or applicable only to settings or populations included in the studies.
Summarising the e
evidence
vidence and making e
evidence
vidence statements
The review data was summarised in evidence tables (see full review).
The findings from the studies were synthesised and used as the basis for a number of evidence
statements relating to each key question. The evidence statements reflect the strength (quantity,
type and quality) of evidence and its applicability to the populations and settings in the scope.
Economic appraisal
The economic appraisal consisted of a review of economic evaluations and a cost-effectiveness
analysis.
Re
Review
view of economic e
evaluations
valuations
The following databases were searched:
EconLit
Page 31 of 41
Health Economic Evaluation Database (HEED)

NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED).
The inclusion and exclusion criteria were the same as those used for the effectiveness review. 'Cost
per case averted' was chosen as the primary measure of cost and effect.
Cost-effectiv
Cost-effectiveness
eness analysis
The primary outcome produced by the economic analysis was the cost per case of averting
hazardous/harmful drinking. An additional analysis was undertaken to estimate the quality of life
years (QALY) gained before reaching a 20,000 or 30,000 per QALY threshold. A costconsequence analysis was also carried out on non-health related outcomes.
An economic model was constructed to incorporate data from the reviews of effectiveness and
cost effectiveness. The results are available on the NICE website.
Fieldwork
Fieldwork was carried out to evaluate the relevance and usefulness of NICE guidance for
practitioners and the feasibility of implementation. It was conducted with practitioners and
commissioners who are involved in providing alcohol education and advice to children and young
people in schools. They included those working in the NHS, education, local authorities, the
criminal justice sector and the wider public, voluntary and community sectors.
The fieldwork comprised:
Three meetings carried out in Liverpool, Manchester and Bristol with practitioners and
commissioners working in education, health and the criminal justice sectors.
Twenty two semi-structured telephone interviews with professionals working in education,
the NHS, children, young people and families' services, criminal justice and the voluntary and
community sectors.
The main issues arising from the fieldwork are set out in appendix C under fieldwork findings. The
full fieldwork report is available on the NICE website.
Page 32 of 41
How PHIAC formulated the recommendations

At its meeting in May 2007 PHIAC considered the evidence of effectiveness and cost effectiveness
to determine:
whether there was sufficient evidence (in terms of quantity, quality and applicability) to form a
judgement
whether, on balance, the evidence demonstrates that the intervention is effective or
ineffective, or whether it is equivocal
where there is an effect, the typical size of effect.
PHIAC developed draft recommendations through informal consensus, based on the following
criteria.
Strength (quality and quantity) of the evidence of effectiveness and its applicability to the
populations/settings referred to in the scope.
Effect size and potential impact on population health and/or reducing inequalities in health.
Cost effectiveness (for the NHS and other public sector organisations).
Balance of risks and benefits.
Ease of implementation and the anticipated extent of change in practice that would be
required.
Where possible, recommendations were linked to an evidence statement(s) (see appendix C for
details). Where a recommendation was inferred from the evidence, this was indicated by the
reference 'IDE' (inference derived from the evidence).
The draft guidance, including the recommendations, was released for consultation in July 2007. At
its meeting in September 2007, the PDG considered comments from stakeholders and the results
from fieldwork, and amended the guidance. The guidance was signed off by the NICE Guidance
Executive in October 2007.
Page 33 of 41
Appendix C: the e
evidence
vidence
This appendix sets out the relevant evidence statements taken from the review (see appendix B for
the key to study types and quality assessments) and links them to the relevant recommendations.
The evidence statements are presented here without references these can be found in the full
review (see appendix E for details). It also sets out a brief summary of findings from the economic
appraisal.
The combined review and economic appraisal are available on the NICE website. Where a
recommendation is not taken directly from the evidence statements, but is inferred from the
evidence, this is indicated by IDE (inference derived from the evidence).
Recommendation 1
1: evidence statements 1, 2, 3c, 5.
Recommendation 2
2: evidence statements 4a, 5.
Recommendation 3
3: IDE.
Evidence statements
Evidence statement 1
There is evidence from a high-quality systematic review (++) that three programmes:
Strengthening Families, Botvin's life skills training (LST) and a culturally focused curriculum for
Native American students, can produce long-term reductions (greater than 3 years) in alcohol use.
There is evidence from two classroom-based, teacher-led programmes that targeted children
between the ages of 12 and 13 years, to suggest that interventions using the life skills approach
(three RCTs [+]) or focusing on harm reduction through skills-based activities (School Health and
Alcohol Harm Reduction Project [SHAHRP]) (one CNRT [+]) can produce medium- to long-term
reductions in alcohol use and, in particular, risky drinking behaviours such as drunkenness and
binge drinking. However, the applicability and transferability of these programmes requires further
study.
Page 34 of 41
Evidence statement 3c
There is evidence (one RCT [+]) to suggest that a culturally-tailored skills training intervention for
Native American students may have long-term effects on alcohol use. However, given the cultural
specificity of this programme, it has limited applicability to UK practice and policy.
Evidence statement 4a
There is evidence to suggest that brief intervention programmes that involve nurse-led
consultations regarding a young person's alcohol use, such as the STARS for Families programme
(two RCTs [++], seven RCTs [+]), that target children aged 1213, can produce short-, but not
medium-term reductions in heavy drinking. However, these types of programme may have limited
applicability as they are based on an abstinence approach.
There is evidence to suggest that programmes that begin early in childhood, combine a schoolbased curriculum intervention with parent education, such as the Seattle Social Development
Project (SSDP) (one CNRT [+]) and Linking the Interests of Families and Teachers (LIFT) (one RCT []), which target a range of problem behaviours including alcohol use, can have long-term effects on
heavy and patterned drinking behaviours. In addition, the Healthy School and Drugs Project (one
CNRT [+]), which targeted secondary school students, had short-term effects on alcohol use.
However, longer-term effects of the programme have not been examined.
Cost-effectiveness evidence
Overall, school-based alcohol interventions were found to be cost effective, given the fact that they
may avert the high costs associated with harmful drinking (both in terms of health and other
consequences). However, intensive long-term programmes may not be cost effective.
It should be noted that the economic analysis carried out to determine whether or not an
intervention was cost effective was subject to very large uncertainties.
Fieldwork findings
Fieldwork aimed to test the relevance, usefulness and feasibility of implementing the
recommendations and the findings were considered by PHIAC in developing the final
recommendations. For details, go to the fieldwork section in appendix B and online.
Page 35 of 41
Fieldwork participants were generally positive about the recommendations and their potential to
help prevent or reduce alcohol use among children and young people. The recommendations were
seen to reinforce aspects of the National Healthy Schools Standard and the Science and PSHE and
PSHE education curricula, particularly in relation to Key Stages 3 and 4.
Participants felt that the 'harm reduction' approach adopted was a more realistic option than
abstention, although they were clear that young people who decide not to use alcohol should also
be respected.
The promotion of community partnerships was acknowledged as critical in ensuring a consistent,
comprehensive response to alcohol use across education settings and the community.
The majority of participants said the recommendations were relevant to their roles. They also said
that although the interventions being promoted did not offer a new approach, this good practice
has not been implemented universally. Wider and more systematic implementation would be
achieved if:
there was a strong network of support staff (such as school nurses)
schools developed links with local youth substance misuse services
teachers and support staff were appropriately trained and skilled
the recommendations were promoted as 'standards' rather than guidance
the recommendations were implemented as part of wider local or national alcohol strategies
Many participants reported that they would use NICE guidance to help plan new initiatives as it
provided information that was not currently included in DCSF or Qualifications and Curriculum
Authority (QCA) guidance.
Page 36 of 41
Appendix D: gaps in the e

evidence
vidence
PHIAC identified a number of gaps in the evidence relating to the interventions under examination,
based on an assessment of the evidence, stakeholder comments and fieldwork data. These gaps are
set out below.
1. There is a lack of well-designed studies on the effectiveness and cost- effectiveness of
alcohol education programmes in schools in England (most of the available evidence
originates from the US). There is also a lack of research on whether effective US-based
programmes can be implemented successfully in the UK. The 'Blueprint' programme is
currently being evaluated, but other prevention programmes in England need to be
evaluated on an ongoing basis.
2. There have been few economic evaluations of alcohol education and few of those have
considered both the costs and consequences of implementing school-based programmes.
3. Many studies had design limitations which potentially affect their validity, in particular, in
relation to:
the methods used to randomise participants or clusters
the way participant numbers were reported at baseline and the way details of
attrition were reported
the use of non-validated surrogate outcome measures that were not relevant to
English policy
the lack of power in the studies
the analyses used
analyses which did not take baseline imbalances into account
the use of self-reported data (reports could be biased as alcohol use is a sensitive
issue associated with social values).
In addition, the differential effectiveness of interventions in relation to
disadvantaged and minority groups could not be determined.
4. Few studies utilised standardised outcome measures which had been determined a priori;
these should include adverse outcomes and measures of harm. Reporting of findings often
lacked clarity and detail.
Page 37 of 41
5. There is a lack of data on how alcohol education programmes impact on crime, levels of
violence and other consequences of alcohol use.
6. Standardised data on the impact of alcohol use among children and young people is
limited (this data should cover, for example, injuries and other health effects, violence and
disorder, unintended pregnancies and school attendance). In addition, there is a lack of
data on long-term drinking trends among children and young people, and on the long-term
health and social impacts (into adulthood).
7. There is a lack of qualitative studies looking at: children and young people's attitudes
towards and views on alcohol use; the meaning and role of alcohol in their lives; and
the role of the alcohol industry.
8. There is a lack of data on the effectiveness of peer-led alcohol education for children and
young people.
9. Alcohol education programmes tend to be evaluated in isolation or as part of general
substance misuse programmes. There has been little evaluation of alcohol education
offered as part of general health education and life skills training.
10. The effectiveness of using the PSHE and PSHE education framework to deliver alcohol
education (as part of the National Healthy Schools Programme) needs further evaluation.
11. There is a lack of research into the differential effectiveness of interventions for different
groups of children and young people. In particular, there is a lack of research into the
impact that interventions can have on those most at risk of alcohol-related harm and in
relation to health inequalities.
12. There is a lack of research on how different types of school and the demographic profile of
a school affects the uptake, delivery and impact of alcohol education programmes.
13. There is a lack of evidence on what skills and qualities are needed to deliver an effective
alcohol education programme in schools.
14. There is a lack of research on the impact of new licensing laws (for instance, all-day
opening) on the way children and young people use alcohol.
The Committee made five recommendations for research. These are listed in section 5.
Page 38 of 41
Appendix E: supporting documents

Supporting documents are available from the NICE website. These include the following:
Review of effectiveness and cost effectiveness executive summary, main report and evidence
tables.
A quick reference guide for professionals whose remit includes public health and for
interested members of the public.
For information on how NICE public health guidance is developed, see:
'Methods for development of NICE public health guidance (second edition, 2009)'
'The NICE public health guidance development process: An overview for stakeholders
including public health practitioners, policy makers and the public (second edition, 2009)'.
Page 39 of 41
Changes after publication

February 2012: minor maintenance.
February 2013: minor maintenance.
Page 40 of 41
About this guidance

NICE public health guidance makes recommendations on the promotion of good health and the
prevention of ill health.
This guidance was developed using the NICE public health intervention guidance process.
The recommendations from this guidance have been incorporated into a NICE Pathway. Tools to
help you put the guidance into practice and information about the evidence it is based on are also
available.
Your responsibility
This guidance represents the views of the Institute and was arrived at after careful consideration of
the evidence available. Those working in the NHS, local authorities, the wider public, voluntary and
community sectors and the private sector should take it into account when carrying out their
professional, managerial or voluntary duties.
Implementation of this guidance is the responsibility of local commissioners and/or providers.
Commissioners and providers are reminded that it is their responsibility to implement the
guidance, in their local context, in light of their duties to avoid unlawful discrimination and to have
regard to promoting equality of opportunity. Nothing in this guidance should be interpreted in a
way which would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.
Cop
Copyright
yright
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2007. All rights reserved. NICE copyright
material can be downloaded for private research and study, and may be reproduced for educational
and not-for-profit purposes. No reproduction by or for commercial organisations, or for
commercial purposes, is allowed without the written permission of NICE.
Contact NICE
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Level 1A, City Tower, Piccadilly Plaza, Manchester M1 4BT
www.nice.org.uk
[email protected]
0845 033 7780
Page 41 of 41

Alcohol School Based Interventions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alcohol School Based Interventions

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alcohol School Based Interventions

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Alcohol: school-based interv

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

2 Public health need and practice................................................................................................................................. 9

Appendix B: summary of the methods used to develop this guidance...........................................................26

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

Reviewing the evidence of effectiveness ............................................................................................................................... 27

Appendix C: the evidence ...............................................................................................................................................34

Appendix D: gaps in the evidence.................................................................................................................................37

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

This guideline is the basis of QS83.

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

School-based education and advice

Who should tak

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

What action should they tak

Who should tak

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

What action should they tak

Who should tak

What action should they tak

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

Public health need and pr

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

Different countries favour different approaches to alcohol education. For

There is no consensus about what constitutes safe and sensible levels of

In the absence of guidance on safe and sensible levels of alcohol consumption,

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

A number of social, cultural and economic factors have an influence on alcohol

While schools have an important role to play in combating harmful drinking,

The recommendations support implementation of 'Every child matters: change

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

The evidence on school-based interventions was not extensive and, as most of it

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

As alcohol use is a sensitive issue associated with social values, self-reported

The economic analysis carried out to determine whether or not an intervention

A number of studies evaluated the input of external contributors to school

The recommended interventions were not compared with other types of

Forthcoming NICE guidance on PSHE and PSHE education, with reference to

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)

NICE guidance can help:

NICE 2007. All rights reserved.

School-based interventions on alcohol (PH7)