Explore the vast range of titles available.

Preventing nicotine use onset among children and youth is an important public health goal. One possible contributor that has received little empirical investigation is caffeine use. The goal of this study was to examine the possible contribution of caffeine to nicotine onset during early adolescence. We used data from the Young Mountaineer Health Study Cohort. Survey data were collected from 1,349 (response rate: 80.7%) 6th grade students (mean age at baseline 11.5 years) in 20 middle schools in West Virginia during the fall of 2020 and spring of 2021. We limited our analyses to students reporting never having used any form of nicotine at baseline. Logistic regression was employed in analyses. Approximately 8% of participants reported having used nicotine at least once between baseline and the follow-up, and 4.7% reported solely using electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and no other forms of nicotine. In multivariable analyses, we controlled for many environmental, social, and behavioral variables known to influence nicotine use such as alcohol use, peer substance use, and perceived access to nicotine. We formulated our main independent variable, caffeine consumption, as continuous deciles. Any nicotine use, as well as ENDS use only at follow-up, were modeled as dependent variables. Caffeine was significantly associated with nicotine use in both models with ORs of 1.15 (1.04-1.27) and 1.13 (1.00-1.28). Caffeine consumption among 6th grade non-nicotine users was associated with nicotine use at approximately 6-months follow-up.

Background Parental support (PS) and parental monitoring (PM) are known protective factors against adolescent substance use (SU). However, little is known about whether PS and PM may affect SU outcomes differently by gender and age. This study examined the relationship between PS and PM and adolescent SU, specifically alcohol and tobacco use, stratified by gender and age group. Methods Middle and high school students ( n  = 2351, 48.5% Female) completed surveys of self-reported SU, perceived PS and PM, and socioeconomic background. Age group was defined dichotomously as grade 7–8 Middle school and grade 9–10 High school students. PS and PM were each measured using previously validated tools. SU was measured by lifetime and past 30 days cigarette/alcohol use. One-way ANOVA and binary logistic regression models were completed. Odds ratios and means were reported. Results PS and PM were significantly and negatively related to all outcome variables regardless of gender and age group. Mean differences in PS and PM were insignificant between age groups. Between genders, PM scores were significantly higher for girls (14.05) compared to boys (13.48) ( p  < 0.01). Odds Ratios of all four SU types (for alcohol and tobacco use) increased with higher age group, with ORs ranging from 1.45–2.61 ( p  < .05). Conclusions PS and PM were protective against SU for all participants, consistent with previous literature. Girls reported greater parental monitoring than boys, irrespective of age-group. While girls experienced higher levels of monitoring, they did not report lower SU than boys. This suggests that monitoring girls more closely than boys appears unnecessary in preventing adolescent SU. Finally, PS was a more significant factor in preventing SU for older adolescents (high school aged group) than for younger adolescents, irrespective of gender suggesting that PS may be more impactful and important as adolescents age. As children mature, particularly from middle school to high school, PS may play a larger role in preventing SU for older adolescents compared to younger ones.

Adolescent substance use—the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and other harmful drugs—remains a persistent global problem and has presented ongoing challenges for public health authorities and society. In response to the high rates of adolescent substance use during the 1990s, Iceland has pioneered in the development of the Icelandic Model for Primary Prevention of Substance Use—a theory-based approach that has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing substance use in Iceland over the past 20 years. In an effort to document our approach and inform potentially replicable practice-based processes for implementation in other country settings, we outline in a two-part series of articles the background and theory, guiding principles of the approach, and the core steps used in the successful implementation of the model. In this article, we describe the background context, theoretical orientation, and development of the approach and briefly review published evaluation findings. In addition, we present the five guiding principles that underlie the Icelandic Prevention Model’s approach to adolescent substance use prevention and discuss the accumulated evidence that supports effectiveness of the model. In a subsequent Part 2 article, we will identify and describe key processes and the 10 core steps of effective practice-based implementation of the model.

Background The Icelandic Prevention Model (IPM) is a collaborative upstream model that was designed to influence risk and protective factors related to substance use within the community, school, peer and family contexts. By engaging whole communities, the IPM has been found to be effective in reducing youth substance use behaviours across Iceland. As an extension to the IPM’s participatory approach, this research will examine how youth involvement can enhance outcomes. In addition, this research will evaluate whether the IPM approach is beneficial for mental health promotion and general youth wellbeing. Methods The present research protocol applies the bioecological model within a participatory mixed-method case study design to examine the implementation of the IPM in a rural community in Canada. This study was designed to identify whether the Icelandic substance use prevention model is effective in reducing substance use and promoting mental health and development for Canadian youth. It will also explore how to engage youth within the approach and how this adaptation influences implementation and outcomes. Discussion The findings from this study will contribute to our understanding of upstream prevention of youth substance use and will be used to support scaling of the IPM across Canada.

The Central Appalachian region of the United States is in the midst of a hepatitis C virus epidemic driven by injection of opioids, particularly heroin, with contaminated syringes. In response to this epidemic, several needle exchange programs (NEP) have opened to provide clean needles and other supplies and services to people who inject drugs (PWID). However, no studies have investigated the barriers and facilitators to implementing, operating, and expanding NEPs in less populous areas of the United States. This qualitative case study consisted of interviews with program directors, police chiefs, law enforcement members, and PWID affiliated with two NEPs in the rural state of West Virginia. Interview transcripts were coded inductively and analyzed using qualitative data analysis software. Final common themes related to barriers and facilitators of past program openings, current program operations, and future program plans, were derived through a consensus of two data coders. Both NEPs struggled to find existing model programs, but benefited from broad community support that facilitated implementation. The largest operational barrier was the legal conundrum created by paraphernalia laws that criminalize syringe possession. However, both PWID and law enforcement appreciated the comprehensive services provided by these programs. Program location and transportation difficulties were additional noted barriers. Future program operations are threatened by funding shortages and bans, but necessitated by unexpected program demand. Despite broad community support, program operations are threatened by growing participant volumes, funding shortages, and the federal government's prohibition on the use of funds to purchase needles. Paraphernalia laws create a legal conundrum in the form of criminal sanctions for the possession of needles, which may inadvertently promote needle sharing and disease transmission. Future studies should examine additional barriers to using clean needles provided by rural NEPs that may blunt the effectiveness of NEPs in preventing disease transmission.

This is the second in a two-part series of articles about the Icelandic Model for Primary Prevention of Substance Use (IPM) in this volume of Health Promotion Practice. IPM is a community collaborative approach that has demonstrated remarkable effectiveness in reducing substance use initiation among youth in Iceland over the past 20 years. While the first article focused attention on the background context, theoretical orientation, evaluation and evidence of effectiveness, and the five guiding principles of the model, this second article describes the 10 core steps to practical implementation. Steps 1 to 3 focus on building and maintaining community capacity for model implementation. Steps 4 to 6 focus on implementing a rigorous system of data collection, processing, dissemination, and translation of findings. Steps 7 to 9 are designed to focus community attention and to maximize community engagement in creating and sustaining a social environment in which young people become progressively less likely to engage in substance use, including demonstrative examples from Iceland. And Step 10 focuses on the iterative, repetitive, and long-term nature of the IPM and describes a predictable arc of implementation-related opportunities and challenges. The article is concluded with a brief discussion about potential variation in community factors for implementation.

The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of implementing the Icelandic model for Primary Substance Use Prevention (IPM) in rural Central Appalachia. Guided by the IPM’s theoretical framework, 26 stakeholders from a single county in West Virginia were purposefully recruited during the spring of 2019 and divided into four focus groups. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and analyzed into themes based on IPM premises. Focus group material produced seven themes: Drug use overall, Drug treatment and other service needs, Poverty, Parenting/Caregiver practices, Transportation, Downtime/Leisure time activities, and Opportunities for solutions. General support was found for the potential of the IPM in the region. Preferably, the implementation of the model should coincide with attention to the adult population as drug use was reported to be plaguing the whole community. Treatment options were few and mostly far away. General poverty and lack of public transportation further stifled progress and potential for change. Organized leisure time activities and programs for youth were scarce and mostly seasonal. Suggested solutions for the adult community included workforce and skill training, coupled with increased opportunities for organized leisure activities for youth, and access to healthy role models via schools and faith-based organizations. We conclude that implementation of the IPM would be feasible to prevent substance use initiation and progression among youth in the rural Central Appalachia. We present several specific recommendations for policy and practice that address factors unique to this environment to initiate the IPM implementation development and suggest initial model application strategies.

In two decades, the Icelandic prevention model (IPM) has been employed to dramatically reduce rates of adolescent substance use in Iceland. Briefly, the IPM is a multisectoral, community-based, collaborative system where researchers, policy makers, administrative leaders, and practitioners join forces to reduce the odds of adolescent substance use over time. Comparatively, Iceland now ranks among the lowest in adolescent substance use in all of Europe. Since 2005, the IPM has garnered considerable international attention, and several countries or municipalities within them have adapted, or are presently adapting, the model to their needs. In this commentary, we first briefly review the history and formation of the IPM in Iceland from a school-based survey to a fully integrated prevention system. In the second part, we present a short overview of the national consensus building and institutional collaboration that led to the implementation of the model in Chile in Latin America, as a demonstrative example. In this volume of Health Promotion Practice, we also present a series of two practice-based articles that introduce the IPM. The first article, titled “Development and Guiding Principles of the Icelandic Model for Preventing Adolescent Substance Use,” introduces the theoretical origins of the model, five guiding principles, and evidence of effectiveness to date. In the second article, titled “Implementing the Icelandic Model for Preventing Adolescent Substance Use,” we outline 10 practice-based steps to guide model implementation in other countries. Both articles are available via open access, and both are also available online in Spanish.

Background Using a new needle for every injection can reduce the spread of infectious disease among people who inject drugs (PWID). No previous study has examined new needle use barriers among PWIDs residing in the rural Appalachian part of the United States, an area currently in the midst of a heroin epidemic. Objective Therefore, our primary aim was to explore self-reported barriers to using a new needle by PWID attending a needle exchange program (NEP). Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of PWID attending two NEPs in rural West Virginia located in the heart of Central Appalachia. A convenience sample of PWID ( n  = 100) completed the Barriers to Using New Needles Questionnaire. Results The median number of barriers reported was 5 (range 0–19). Fear of arrest by police (72% of PWID “agreed” or “strongly agreed”) and difficulty with purchasing needles from a pharmacy (64% “agreed” or “strongly agreed”) were the most frequently cited barriers. Conclusions/Importance Congruent with previous findings from urban locations, in rural West Virginia, the ability of PWID to use a new needle obtained from a needle exchange for every injection may be compromised by fear of arrest. In addition, pharmacy sales of new needles to PWID may be blunted by an absence of explicit laws mandating nonprescription sales. Future studies should explore interventions that align the public health goals of NEPs with the occupational safety of law enforcement and health outreach goals of pharmacists.

Background Previous research on the effectiveness of needle exchange programs (NEP) in preventing hepatitis C virus (HCV) in people who inject drugs (PWID) has shown mixed findings. The purpose of this study was to use the meta-analytic approach to examine the association between NEP use and HCV prevention in PWIDs. Methods Study inclusion criteria were (1) observational studies, (2) PWIDs, (3) NEP use, (4) HCV status ascertained by serological testing, (5) studies published in any language since January 1, 1989, and (6) data available for measures of association. Studies were located by searching four electronic databases and cross-referencing. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa (NOS) scale. A ratio measure of association was calculated for each result from cohort or case–control studies and pooled using a random effects model. Odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) models were analyzed separately. Results were considered statistically significant if the 95% confidence interval (CI) did not cross 1. Heterogeneity was estimated using Q and I 2 with alpha values for Q  ≤ 0.10 considered statistically significant. Results Of the 555 citations reviewed, 6 studies containing 2437 participants were included. Studies had an average NOS score of 7 out of 9 (77.8%) stars. Concerns over participant representativeness, unclear adjustments for confounders, and bias from participant nonresponse and loss to follow-up were noted. Results were mixed with the odds ratio model indicating no consistent association (OR, 0.51, 95% CI, 0.05–5.15), and the hazard ratio model indicating a harmful effect (HR, 2.05, 95% CI, 1.39–3.03). Substantial heterogeneity ( p  ≤ 0.10) and moderate to large inconsistency ( I 2  ≥ 66%) were observed for both models. Conclusions The impact of NEPs on HCV prevention in PWIDs remains unclear. There is a need for well-designed research studies employing standardized criteria and measurements to clarify this issue. Trial registration PROSPERO CRD42016035315