Good Practice Platform

Search Results

They present an important evidence base for MS's policy decisions and actions in the fields of alcohol prevention, treatment and harm reduction.Lorem ipsum dolor ...

SELECTION PROCEDURE FOR THE GROUPS OF INTERVENTIONS

The MS representatives in the Committee on National Alcohol Policy an Action (CNAPA) were asked to select groups of interventions for the exchange of good practices to reduce alcohol related harm in the framework of information dissemination. Selected were the following three groups of interventions:
1.    Early interventions (Early identification and brief intervention for hazardous and harmful drinking);
2.    Public awareness interventions (including new media, social networks and online tools for behaviour change);
3.    School-based interventions (information and education).
The selection of these three areas was based on the results of the needs assessment, decided by voting and confirmed by the RARHA Advisory Group. You can find the theoretical background for the three groups of interventions and the descriptions of the accepted good practice interventions later on in the tool kit.


DEFINITION OF "GOOD PRACTICE"
A review of good practice definitions in prevention was carried out, aimed at the preparation of a most suitable and exact definition of good practice (1—10). Based on the research, three versions of the definition were prepared, which were then presented to the partners for the discussion. Finally, we came to a final version of the good practice definition: "Good practice refers to a preventive intervention (action / activity / working method / project / programme / service) that was found to be effective in accomplishing the set objectives and thus in reducing alcohol related harm. The intervention in question has been evaluated either through a systematic review of available evidence and/or expert opinion and/or at least one outcome evaluation. Furthermore, it has been implemented in a real world setting so that the practicality of the intervention and possibly the cost-effectiveness has also been examined."

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

 

 

Basic level: theoretically sound

Theoretically sound and with positive results (observational or qualitative studies)

First indications of effectiveness

The above basic level criteria and

Pre-post study without control group

Good indications of effectiveness

All of the above criteria for the first indications of effectiveness

A reliable and valid measurement of the intervention’s effect was conducted with:

An experimental or quasi experimental design or

A repeated N = 1 study (at least 6 cases) with a baseline or a time series design with a single or multiple baseline or alternating treatments or a study into the correlation between the extent to which an intervention has been used and the extent to which the intended outcomes were achieved or

The effects of the study are compared with other research into the effects of the usual situation or another form of care for a similar target group

Strong indications of effectiveness

All of the above criteria for the good indications of effectiveness

There is a follow-up of at least 6 months

 

 

ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE

All interventions were assessed from April to August 2015. All received interventions were assessed based on the criteria established by the WP6 good practice tool kit assessment team. When an intervention met the criteria described in Table 1, it was subsequently categorized to the levels of evidence described in Table 2.

During the assessment process, it became apparent that there were a lot of intervention descriptions that did not contain enough information to properly assess the intervention. However, there was not enough time and there were not enough resources available to request for more information and do a second assessment round for every intervention that had information missing. Therefore, it was decided that if more than five of the criteria points were unclear, the intervention was immediately rejected. If less than five of the criteria points were unclear, a request for more information was sent, and the intervention was reassessed after receiving this information.