Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018 Mar 9;8(3):e019722.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019722.

Steps Towards Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programme (STAMPP): a school-based and community-based cluster randomised controlled trial

Michael McKay  1   2 , Ashley Agus  3 , Jonathan Cole  2 , Paul Doherty  3 , David Foxcroft  4 , Séamus Harvey  1   5 , Lynn Murphy  3 , Andrew Percy  6 , Harry Sumnall  1
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Steps Towards Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programme (STAMPP): a school-based and community-based cluster randomised controlled trial

Michael McKay et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of a combined classroom curriculum and parental intervention (the Steps Towards Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programme (STAMPP)), compared with alcohol education as normal (EAN), in reducing self-reported heavy episodic drinking (HED) and alcohol-related harms (ARHs) in adolescents.

Setting: 105 high schools in Northern Ireland (NI) and in Scotland.

Participants: Schools were stratified by free school meal provision. Schools in NI were also stratified by school type (male/female/coeducational). Eligible students were in school year 8/S1 (aged 11-12 years) at baseline (June 2012).

Intervention: A classroom-based alcohol education intervention, coupled with a brief alcohol intervention for parents/carers. PRIMARY OUTCOMES: (1) The prevalence of self-reported HED in the previous 30 days and (2) the number of self-reported ARHs in the previous 6 months. Outcomes were assessed using two-level random intercepts models (logistic regression for HED and negative binomial for number of ARHs).

Results: At 33 months, data were available for 5160 intervention and 5073 control students (HED outcome), and 5234 and 5146 students (ARH outcome), respectively. Of those who completed a questionnaire at either baseline or 12 months (n=12 738), 10 405 also completed the questionnaire at 33 months (81.7%). Fewer students in the intervention group reported HED compared with EAN (17%vs26%; OR=0.60, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.73), with no significant difference in the number of self-reported ARHs (incident rate ratio=0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.05). Although the classroom component was largely delivered as intended, there was low uptake of the parental component. There were no reported adverse effects.

Conclusions: Results suggest that STAMPP could be an effective programme to reduce HED prevalence. While there was no significant reduction in ARH, it is plausible that effects on harms would manifest later.

Trial registration number: ISRCTN47028486; Post-results.

Keywords: adolescents; alcohol; alcohol related harm; prevention; school based intervention; universal prevention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: The sponsor university (LJMU) received and administered a payment from the alcohol industry for printing of student workbooks in the Glasgow trial site only. AP reported that he has previously received funding from the European Foundation of Alcohol Research (ERAB) in relation to the development of statistical models for longitudinal data (2008–2010). DF reported that his department has previously received funding from the alcohol industry for unrelated prevention programme training work. HS reported that his department has previously received funding from the alcohol industry (indirectly via the industry funded Drinkaware charity) for unrelated primary research.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
School and participant flow diagram: STAMPP Trial. Analysis was conducted at 33 months on students who had completed each of the primary outcome measures. N=number of schools; n=student numbers. STAMPP, Steps Towards Alcohol Misuse Prevention Programme.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Count of school children reporting one or more alcohol-related harms by study arm.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Oesterle S, Hill KG, Hawkins JD, et al. . Adolescent heavy episodic drinking trajectories and health in young adulthood. J Stud Alcohol 2004;65:204–12. 10.15288/jsa.2004.65.204 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bellis MA, Morleo M, Hughes K, et al. . A cross-sectional survey of compliance with national guidance for alcohol consumption by children: measuring risk factors, protective factors and social norms for excessive and unsupervised drinking. BMC Public Health 2010;10:8 10.1186/1471-2458-10-547 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. McMorris BJ, Catalano RF, Kim MJ, et al. . Influence of family factors and supervised alcohol use on adolescent alcohol use and harms: similarities between youth in different alcohol policy contexts. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 2011;72:418–28. 10.15288/jsad.2011.72.418 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Livingston JA, Testa M, Hoffman JH, et al. . Can parents prevent heavy episodic drinking by allowing teens to drink at home? Addict Behav 2010;35:1105–12. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2010.08.005 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Maimaris W, McCambridge J. Age of first drinking and adult alcohol problems: systematic review of prospective cohort studies. J Epidemiol Community Health 2014;68:268–74. 10.1136/jech-2013-203402 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources