Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Research article

A systematic review of parent based programs to prevent or reduce alcohol consumption in adolescents

Authors: Erin Hurley, Timo Dietrich, Sharyn Rundle-Thiele

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Adolescent alcohol consumption is an issue of ongoing concern and programs targeting parents have been identified as an important component in minimizing and preventing alcohol related harm in adolescents. This paper aims to evaluate existing parent based alcohol education programs with a focus on understanding parent specific outcomes including parental attitudes, parent-child communication, alcohol specific rule setting and parental monitoring; study quality, the extent of stakeholder engagement in program design and the level of theory application.

Method

A systematic review of electronic databases EBSCO, Emerald, ProQuest, PubMed, Ovid, ScienceDirect, Taylor and Francis and Web of Science was conducted from database inception to August 2019. A total of 4288 unique records were retrieved from the eight databases. Studies were included if they evaluated school based alcohol education programs that included a parent component and detailed outcome measures associated with parent data. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) quality assessment tool.

Results

In total 17 studies qualified for assessment, detailing 13 individual parent programs. Of these, ten programs demonstrated positive effects in at least one parent reported outcome measure. Stakeholder engagement during the design of programs was lacking with the majority of programs. One third of the programs did not report theory use and when theory was used reporting was weak with three programs applying theory, five testing theory and none building theory. According to the EPHPP tool, overall ten programs were rated as weak, three as moderate and none as strong.

Conclusion

Future studies are recommended to further enhance the effectiveness of parental programs by improving study quality, increasing stakeholder engagement and increasing the level of theory application and reporting.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Newton NC, Champion KE, Slade T, et al. A systematic review of combined student-and parent-based programs to prevent alcohol and other drug use among adolescents. Drug and Alcohol Review. 2017;36:337–51.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Lam T, Lenton S, Ogeil R, Burns L, Aiken A, Chikritzhs T, et al. Most recent risky drinking session with Australian teenagers. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2017;41(1):105–10.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Martins SS, Storr CL, Alexandre PK, Chilcoat HD. Adolescent ecstasy and other drug use in the National Survey of parents and youth: the role of sensation-seeking, parental monitoring and peer's drug use. Addict Behaviors. 2008;33(7):919–33.CrossRef
4.
Kelly LM, Becker SJ, Spirito A. Parental monitoring protects against the effects of parent and adolescent depressed mood on adolescent drinking. Addict Behav. 2017;75:7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Berends L, Jones SC, Andrews K. Adolescent drinking, social identity, and parenting for safety: perspectives from Australian adolescents and parents. Health Place. 2016;38:22–9.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Moore GF, Rothwell H, Segrott J. An exploratory study of the relationship between parental attitudes and behaviour and young people's consumption of alcohol. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. 2010;5:6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Carver H, Elliott L, Kennedy C, Hanley J. Parent-child connectedness and communication in relation to alcohol, tobacco and drug use in adolescence: an integrative review of the literature. Drugs-Education Prevention and Policy. 2017;24(2):119–33.CrossRef
8.
Mattick RP, Wadolowski M, Aiken A, Clare PJ, Hutchinson D, Najman J, et al. Parental supply of alcohol and alcohol consumption in adolescence: prospective cohort study. Psychol Med. 2017;47(2):267–78.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Schinke SP, Schwinn TM, Di Noia J, Cole KC. Reducing the risks of alcohol use among urban youth: three-year effects of a computer-based intervention with and without parent involvement. J Stud Alcohol. 2004;65(4):443–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Van Ryzin MJ, Fosco GM, Dishion TJ. Family and peer predictors of substance use from early adolescence to early adulthood: an 11-year prospective analysis. Addict Behav. 2012;37(12):1314–24.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
Fox A. Understanding behaviour in the Australian and New Zealand night-time economies: an anthropological study. Sydney: Lion; 2015.
12.
Onrust SA, Otten R, Lammers J, Smit F. School-based programmes to reduce and prevent substance use in different age groups: what works for whom? Systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Clin Psychol Rev. 2016;44:45–59.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Yap MB, Cheong TW, Zaravinos-Tsakos F, Lubman DI, Jorm AF. Modifiable parenting factors associated with adolescent alcohol misuse: a systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Addiction. 2017;112(7):1142–62.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Bo A, Hai AH, Jaccard J. Parent-based interventions on adolescent alcohol use outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2018;191:98–109.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Foxcroft DR, Tsertsvadze A. Universal multi-component prevention programs for alcohol misuse in young people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;9.
16.
Gilligan C, Wolfenden L, Foxcroft DR, et al. Family-based prevention programmes for alcohol use in young people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;3:12287.
17.
Kuntsche S, Kuntsche E. Parent-based interventions for preventing or reducing adolescent substance use—a systematic literature review. Clin Psychol Rev. 2016;45:89–101.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Augenstein TM, Thomas SA, Ehrlich KB, Daruwala S, Reyes SM, Chrabaszcz JS, et al. Comparing multi-informant assessment measures of parental monitoring and their links with adolescent delinquent behavior. Parenting. 2016;16(3):164–86.PubMedCrossRef
19.
De Los RA, Ehrlich KB, Swan AJ, Luo TJ, Van Wie M, Pabón SC. An experimental test of whether informants can report about child and family behavior based on settings of behavioral expression. J Child Fam Stud. 2013;22(2):177–91.CrossRef
20.
Gregson J, Foerster SB, Orr R, Jones L, Benedict J, Clarke B, et al. System, environmental, and policy changes: using the social-ecological model as a framework for evaluating nutrition education and social marketing programs with low-income audiences. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2001;33:S4–S15.CrossRef
21.
Gitlin LN, Marx K, Stanley IH, Hodgson N. Translating evidence-based dementia caregiving interventions into practice: state-of-the-science and next steps. The Gerontologist. 2015;55(2):210–26.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
David P, Rundle-Thiele S, Pang B, et al. Engaging the dog owner community in the design of an effective koala aversion program. Soc Mark Q. 2019;25(1):55–68.CrossRef
23.
Byrne M. Increasing the impact of behavior change intervention research: is there a role for stakeholder engagement? Health Psychol. 2019;38(4):290–6.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Hodgkins S, Rundle-Thiele S, Knox K, Kim J. Utilising stakeholder theory for social marketing process evaluation in a food waste context. J Soc Mark. 2019;9(3):270–87.CrossRef
25.
Freeman RE. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach: Cambridge university press; 2010.CrossRef
26.
McCarron HR, Finlay JM, Sims T, Nikzad-Terhune K, Gaugler JE. Stakeholder engagement to enhance interventions for family caregivers of people with dementia: a case study of care to plan. J Gerontol Soc Work. 2019;62(1):29–47.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Hult GTM, Mena JA, Ferrell O, Ferrell L. Stakeholder marketing: a definition and conceptual framework. AMS Review. 2011;1(1):44–65.CrossRef
28.
Buyucek N, Kubacki K, Rundle-Thiele S, Pang B. A systematic review of stakeholder involvement in social marketing interventions. Australas Mark J AMJ. 2016;24(1):8–19.CrossRef
29.
30.
Kaur A, Lodhia SK. The extent of stakeholder engagement in sustainability accounting and reporting: Does empowerment of stakeholders really exist? Emerald Publishing Limited; 2017. p. 129–45.
31.
Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, et al. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Dietrich T, Rundle-Thiele S, Schuster L, Connor JP. A systematic literature review of alcohol education programmes in middle and high school settings (2000-2014). Health Educ. 2016;116(1):50–68.CrossRef
33.
Cummings J. Engaging stakeholders in corporate accountability programmes: a cross-sectoral analysis of UK and transnational experience. Business Ethics. 2001;10(1):45–52.CrossRef
34.
Steen M. Virtues in participatory design: cooperation, curiosity, creativity, empowerment and reflexivity. Sci Eng Ethics. 2013;19(3):945–62.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Laverack G, Labonte R. A planning framework for community empowerment goals within health promotion. Health Policy Plan. 2000;15(3):255–62.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Späth L, Scolobig A. Stakeholder empowerment through participatory planning practices: Tthe case of electricity transmission lines in France and Norway. Energy Res Soc Sci. 2017;23:189–98.CrossRef
37.
Verhulst E, Boks C. Employee empowerment for sustainable design. J Corp Citizsh. 2014;(55):73–101.CrossRef
38.
Michie S, Prestwich A. Are interventions theory-based? Development of a theory coding scheme. Health Psychol. 2010;29(1):1.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Hardeman W, Sutton S, Griffin S, Johnston M, White A, Wareham NJ, et al. A causal modelling approach to the development of theory-based behaviour change programmes for trial evaluation. Health Educ Res. 2005;20(6):676–87.PubMedCrossRef
40.
French J, Blair-Stevens C. Social marketing national benchmark criteria. UK.: UK National Social Marketing Centre; 2006.
41.
Davis R, Campbell R, Hildon Z, Hobbs L, Michie S. Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9(3):323–44.PubMedCrossRef
42.
Bandura A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol Health. 1998;13(4):623–49.CrossRef
43.
Szapocznik J, Coatsworth JD. An ecodevelopmental framework for organizing the influences on drug abuse: a developmental model of risk and protection; 1999.
44.
Bogenschneider K. Family related prevention programs: an ecological risk/protective theory for building prevention programs, policies, and community capacity to support youth. Fam Relat. 1996;45(2):127–38.CrossRef
45.
Ladis BA, Macgowan M, Thomlison B, et al. Parent-focused preventive interventions for youth substance use and problem behaviors: a systematic review. Res Soc Work Pract. 2019;29(4):420–42.CrossRef
46.
Truong VD. Social marketing: a systematic review of research 1998–2012. Soc Mark Q. 2014;20(1):15–34.CrossRef
47.
Luca S. Theory and model use in social marketing health interventions. J Health Commun. 2013;18(1):20–40.PubMedCrossRef
48.
49.
50.
Willmott T, Pang B, Rundle-Thiele S, Badejo A. Reported theory use in electronic health weight management interventions targeting young adults: a systematic review. Health Psychol Rev. 2019:1–23.
51.
David P, Rundle-Thiele S. Social marketing theory measurement precision: a theory of planned behaviour illustration. J Soc Mark. 2018;8(2):182–201.CrossRef
52.
Rundle-Thiele S, David P, Willmott T, et al. Social marketing theory development goals: an agenda to drive change. J Mark Manag. 2019;35(1–2):160–81.CrossRef
53.
Sanders EB-N, Stappers PJ. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design. 2008;4(1):5–18.
54.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
55.
Williams CL, Grechanaia T, Romanova O, et al. Russian-American partners for prevention: adaptation of a school-based parent-child programme for alcohol use prevention. Eur J Pub Health. 2001;11(3):314–21.CrossRef
56.
Estrada Y, Lee TK, Huang S, Tapia MI, Velazquez MR, Martinez MJ, et al. Parent-centered prevention of risky behaviors among Hispanic youths in Florida. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(4):607–13.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
Carroll HA, Heleniak C, Witkiewitz K, Lewis M, Eakins D, Staples J, et al. Effects of parental monitoring on alcohol use in the US and Sweden: a brief report. Addict Behav. 2016;63:89–92.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentral
58.
Sanford C, Rose J. Characterizing eParticipation. Int J Inf Manag. 2007;27(6):406–21.CrossRef
59.
60.
Thackeray R, Neiger BL. Establishing a relationship between behavior change theory and social marketing: implications for health education. J Health Educ. 2000;31(6):331–5.CrossRef
61.
Glanz K, Bishop DB. The role of behavioral science theory in development and implementation of public health interventions. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:399–418.PubMedCrossRef
62.
63.
Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, et al. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(27):3–5.CrossRef
64.
Hersch D, Perdue L, Ambroz T, Boucher JL. Peer reviewed: the impact of cooking classes on food-related preferences, attitudes, and behaviors of school-aged children: a systematic review of the evidence, 2003–2014. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11(11):1–10.
65.
Norris E, Shelton N, Dunsmuir S, Duke-Williams O, Stamatakis E. Physically active lessons as physical activity and educational interventions: a systematic review of methods and results. Prev Med. 2015;72:116–25.PubMedCrossRef
66.
Jackson N, Waters E. Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions. Health Promot Int. 2005;20(4):367–74.PubMedCrossRef
67.
Thomas B, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Micucci S. A process for systematically reviewing the literature: providing the research evidence for public health nursing interventions. Worldviews Evid-Based Nurs. 2004;1(3):176–84.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Tael-Oeren M, Naughton F, Sutton S. A parent-oriented alcohol prevention program "Effekt" had no impact on adolescents' alcohol use: findings from a cluster-randomized controlled trial in Estonia. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2019;194:279–87.PubMedCrossRef
69.
Koutakis N, Stattin H, Kerr M. Reducing youth alcohol drinking through a parent-targeted intervention: the Örebro prevention program. Addiction. 2008;103(10):1629–37.PubMedCrossRef
70.
Bodin MC, Strandberg AK. The Orebro prevention program revisited: a cluster-randomized effectiveness trial of program effects on youth drinking. Addiction. 2011;106(12):2134–43.PubMedCrossRef
71.
Skeer M, Yantsides K, Eliasziw M, et al. Testing a brief substance misuse preventive intervention for parents of pre-adolescents: feasibility, acceptability, preliminary efficacy. J Child Fam Stud. 2016;25(12):3739–48.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
72.
Perry CL, Williams CL, Komro KA, et al. Project northland: long-term outcomes of community action to reduce adolescent alcohol use. Health Educ Res. 2002;17(1):117–32.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Pettersson C, Ozdemir M, Eriksson C. Effects of a parental program for preventing underage drinking - the NGO program strong and clear. BMC Public Health. 2011;11.
74.
Adolfsen F, Strom HK, Martinussen M, et al. Parent participation in alcohol prevention: evaluation of an alcohol prevention programme. Nordic Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2017;34(6):456–70.CrossRef
75.
Park J, Kosterman R, Hawkins JD, et al. Effects of the “preparing for the drug free years” curriculum on growth in alcohol use and risk for alcohol use in early adolescence. Prev Sci. 2000;1(3):125–38.PubMedCrossRef
76.
Beatty SE, Cross DS, Shaw TM. The impact of a parent-directed intervention on parent-child communication about tobacco and alcohol. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2008;27(6):591–601.PubMedCrossRef
77.
Ennett ST, Bauman KE, Pemberton M, et al. Mediation in a family-directed program for prevention of adolescent tobacco and alcohol use. Prev Med. 2001;33(4):333–46.PubMedCrossRef
78.
Koning IM, van den Eijnden RJJM, Engels RCME, Verdurmen JEE, Vollebergh WAM. Why target early adolescents and parents in alcohol prevention? The mediating effects of self-control, rules and attitudes about alcohol use. Addiction. 2011;106(3):538–46.PubMedCrossRef
79.
Pilgrim C, Abbey A, Hendrickson P, Lorenz S. Implementation and impact of a family-based substance abuse prevention program in rural communities. J Prim Prev. 1998;18(3):341–61.CrossRef
80.
Brown PC, Dunn ME, Budney AJ. Development and initial evaluation of a web-based program to increase parental awareness and monitoring of underage alcohol use: a brief report. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 2014;23(2):109–15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
81.
Glatz T, Koning IM. The outcomes of an alcohol prevention program on parents' rule setting and self-efficacy: a bidirectional model. Prev Sci. 2016;17(3):377–85.PubMedCrossRef
82.
Kosterman R, Hawkins JD, Haggerty KP, Spoth R, Redmond C. Preparing for the drug free years: session-specific effects of a universal parent-training intervention with rural families. J Drug Educ. 2001;31(1):47–68.PubMedCrossRef
83.
Toomey TL, et al. An alcohol primary prevention program for parents of 7th graders: the amazing alternatives! Home program. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 1996;5(4):35–53.CrossRef
84.
Koutakis N, Stattin H, Kerr M. Reducing youth alcohol drinking through a parent-targeted intervention: the Orebro prevention program. Addiction. 2008;103(10):1629–37.PubMedCrossRef
85.
Bauman KE, Foshee VA, Ennett ST, Hicks K, Pemberton M. Family matters: a family-directed program designed to prevent adolescent tobacco and alcohol use. Health Promot Pract. 2001;2(1):81–96.CrossRef
86.
Mynttinen M, Pietila AM, Kangasniemi M. What does parental involvement mean in preventing adolescents' use of alcohol? An integrative review. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 2017;26(4):338–51.CrossRef
87.
Lam T, Chikritzhs T, Liang W, Allsop S. Parental alcohol supply at school leavers’ celebrations and other peer-based social events. J Subst Abus. 2017;22(5):516–23.
88.
Fishbein M. A reasoned action approach to health promotion. Med Decis Mak. 2008;28(6):834–44.CrossRef
89.
Miller-Day M, Kam JA. More than just openness: developing and validating a measure of targeted parent–child communication about alcohol. Health Commun. 2010;25(4):293–302.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
90.
Schwinn TM, Schinke SP. Alcohol use and related behaviors among late-adolescent urban youths: peer and parent influences. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. 2014;23(1):58–64.PubMedCrossRef
91.
Mares SHW, Lichtwarck-Aschoff A, Burk WJ, van der Vorst H, Engels RCME. Parental alcohol-specific rules and alcohol use from early adolescence to young adulthood. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2012;53(7):798–805.PubMedCrossRef
92.
Dever BV, Schulenberg JE, Dworkin JB, et al. Predicting risk-taking with and without substance use: the effects of parental monitoring, school bonding, and sports participation. Prev Sci. 2012;13(6):605–15.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
93.
McCann M, Perra O, McLaughlin A, McCartan C, Higgins K. Assessing elements of a family approach to reduce adolescent drinking frequency: parent-adolescent relationship, knowledge management and keeping secrets. Addiction. 2016;111(5):843–53.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
94.
Hurley E, Trischler J, Dietrich T. Exploring the application of co-design to transformative service research. J Serv Mark. 2018;32(6):715–27.CrossRef
95.
Perry CL, Williams CL, Forster JL, et al. Background, conceptualization and design of a community-wide research program on adolescent alcohol use: project northland. Health Educ Res. 1993;8(1):125–36.PubMedCrossRef
96.
Truong VD, Dang NV. Reviewing research evidence for social marketing: systematic literature reviews. Formative research in social marketing. Singapore: Springer; 2017.
97.
Ibrahim A, Knox K, Rundle-Thiele S, Arli D. Segmenting a water use market: theory of interpersonal behavior insights. Soc Mark Q. 2017;24:3–17.CrossRef
98.
Hunter RF, de Silva D, Reynolds V, Bird W, Fox KR. International inter-school competition to encourage children to walk to school: a mixed methods feasibility study. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8(1):19.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
99.
Rundle-Thiele SL, Dietrich T, Russell-Bennett R, Drennan J, Leo C, et al. Maintaining or changing a drinking behavior? GOKA's short-term outcomes. J Bus Res. 2015;68(10):2155–63.CrossRef
100.
French J, Gordon R. Strategic social marketing. London: Sage; 2015.
101.
Bloom PN, Gundlach GT. Handbook of marketing and society. London: Sage; 2001.CrossRef
102.
103.
Painter JE, Borba CP, Hynes M, Mays D, Glanz K. The use of theory in health behavior research from 2000 to 2005: a systematic review. Ann Behav Med. 2008;35(3):358–62.PubMedCrossRef
104.
Sharma M. Enhancing the effectiveness of alcohol and drug education programs through social cognitive theory. J Alcohol Drug Educ. 2005;49(3):3.
105.
Pape H. School-based programmes that seem to work. NAD Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 2009;26(6):521–35.CrossRef
106.
Del Boca FK, Darkes J. The validity of self-reports of alcohol consumption: state of the science and challenges for research. Addiction. 2003;98(S2):1–12.PubMedCrossRef
107.
Sutton M, Fraser M. Smartphone apps: the rise of smartphone health and medical apps. Aust Life Sci. 2013;10(2):36.
108.
Petrie J, Bunn F, Byrne G. Parenting programmes for preventing tobacco, alcohol or drugs misuse in children <18: a systematic review. Health Educ Res. 2007;22(2):177–91.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
A systematic review of parent based programs to prevent or reduce alcohol consumption in adolescents
Authors
Erin Hurley
Timo Dietrich
Sharyn Rundle-Thiele
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7733-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Public Health 1/2019 Go to the issue

Research article

“Development in well-being and social function among Danish hemophilia patients with HIV: a three-wave panel study spanning 24 years”

Study protocol

Integrating physical activity into the primary school curriculum: rationale and study protocol for the “Thinking while Moving in English” cluster randomized controlled trial

Study protocol

The effectiveness of a digital shared decision-making tool in hormonal contraception during clinical assessment: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial in Spain

Research article

Psychographic predictors of intention to use cervical cancer screening services among women attending maternal and child health services in Southern Ethiopia: the theory of planned behavior (TPB) perspective

Research article

The association between health literacy and psychosomatic symptoms of adolescents in China: a cross-sectional study

Research article

Using epidemiological data to identify needs for child-rearing support among Chinese parents: a cross-sectional survey of parents of children aged 6 to 35 months in 15 Chinese cities