1 / 45

Youth in Europe -not a campaign but a quiet revolution-

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 11-14 2011. Presentation overview.

thais
Télécharger la présentation

Youth in Europe -not a campaign but a quiet revolution-

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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 11-14 2011

  2. 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

  3. 1. ICSRA introduction

  4. ICSRA A governmental Youth research centre from1992 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

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

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. Iceland in 1992 Governmental decision to start collecting data from 15-16 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

  11. Upward trend 1992 - 1998

  12. 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

  13. 2004

  14. 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

  15. 2006 Vilnius Reykjavik Helsinki Riga St. Petersburg Sofia Kaunas Klaipeda Oslo 9 cities First data collection of Youth in Europe

  16. 2008 • Vilnius Bucharest • Reykjavik Riga • Arilje Klaipeda • Istanbul (Bagcilar) Kaunas • Jurmala Oslo • Sofia • 11 cities Second data collection of Youth in Europe

  17. 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...”

  18. 3. Main characteristics of Youth in Europe

  19. The “research guru” approach

  20. 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

  21. 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

  22. A primary prevention model because substance use follows cohortsSigfusdottir et al. 2011, Global Health Promotion

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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

  26. A way of conveying risk and protective factors in OUR societySigfusdottir 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.

  27. A different way…Sameroff 2010, Child Development

  28. The collaborative approach

  29. 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

  30. Example of ournational 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

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

  32. 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

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

  34. 4. What about evaluation?

  35. An attempt to evaluate the Icelandic successKristjansson 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%

  36. Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 0.90 (95% CI: 0.77-1.00, p= .099)

  37. Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 0.86 (95% CI: 0.78-0.96, p= .004)

  38. Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 1.11 (95% CI: 1.00-1.22, p= .044)

  39. Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02-1.21, p= .015)

  40. Interaction effect: time*intervention, OR 0.85 (95% CI: 0.73-0.99, p= .034)

  41. 5. Further evidence and potential future directions

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

  43. 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

  44. Thank youÁlfgeir Logi Kristjánssonkristjansson@tc.columbia.edualfgeir@rannsoknir.is

More Related