Based on a combination of effect and process evaluation, we aimed to (a) assess whether a community prevention project succeeded in curbing alcohol use and related harm among adolescents and (b) explain the results of the effect evaluation. School surveys among adolescents (n = 20,000) and purchase trials (n = 162) were carried out in intervention and control communities before and after the intervention. Qualitative data from key actors and documents were collected throughout the 3-year project period. The effect evaluation revealed no impact of the intervention on the availability of alcohol, drinking, and alcohol-related harm. The process evaluation showed how and why the prevention project was delayed, that the preventive programs implemented were not likely to be effective, and why these programs were chosen. The latter was essential to explain the finding of the effect evaluation and illustrates the utility and necessity of mixed-method approaches when evaluating a complex intervention.
AndersenJ. (2000). Municipalities between the state and the people. In SulkunenP.SuttonC.TigerstedtC., & WarpeniusK. (Eds.), Broken spirits. Power and ideas in Nordic alcohol control (Vol. 39, pp. 157–184). Helsinki: NAD.
2.
AstburyB., & LeeuwF. L. (2010). Unpacking black boxes: Mechanisms and theory building in evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(3), 363–381.
3.
BaborT.CaetanoR.CasswellS.EdwardsG.GiesbrechtN.GrahamK. (2010). Alcohol: No ordinary commodity. Research and public policy (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
BaklienB. (1983). The use of social science in a Norwegian ministry: As a tool of policy or mode of thinking?Acta Sociologica, 26(1), 33–47.
5.
BlanckP.HensingG., & SpakF. (2007). “We do what we think is the best”—A content analysis of experiences of alcohol problem prevention in Sweden. Substance Use & Misuse, 42(12–13), 2073–2083.
6.
CampbellM.FitzpatrickR.HainesA.KinmonthA. L.SandercockP.SpiegelhalterD. (2000). Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ, 321(7262), 694–696.
7.
CasswellS. (2000). A decade of community action research. Substance Use & Misuse, 35(1–2), 55–74.
8.
CheonJ. W. (2008). Best practices in community-based prevention for youth substance reduction: Towards strengths-based positive development policy. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(6), 761–779.
9.
DusenburyL., & HansenW. B. (2004). Pursuing the course from research to practice. Prevention Science, 5, 55–59.
10.
ForsterJ. L.McGovernP. G.WagenaarA. C.WolfsonM.PerryC. L., & AnstineP. S. (1994). The ability of young people to purchase alcohol without age identification in northeastern Minnesota, USA. Addiction, 89(6), 699–705.
11.
GormanD. M. (1998). The irrelevance of evidence in the development of school-based drug prevention policy, 1986–1996. Evaluation Review, 22(1), 118–146.
12.
GrahamK., & Chandler-CouttsM. (2000). Community action research: Who does what to whom and why? Lessons learned from local prevention efforts (international experiences). Substance Use & Misuse, 35(1–2), 87–110.
13.
HolderH. D. (2000). Community prevention of alcohol problems. Addictive Behaviors, 25(6), 843–859.
14.
HolderH. D. (2002). Prevention of alcohol and drug “abuse” problems at the community level: What research tells usSubstance Use & Misuse, 37(8–10), 901–921.
15.
HolderH. D.GruenewaldP. J.PonickiW. R.TrenoA. J.GrubeJ. W.SaltzR. F. (2000). Effect of community-based interventions on high-risk drinking and alcohol-related injuries. JAMA, 284(18), 2341–2347.
16.
HolderH. D., & TrenoA. J. (1997). Media advocacy in community prevention: News as a means to advance policy change. Addiction, 92(Suppl. 2), 189–199.
17.
HolmilaM.HolderH. D.AndreassonS.BaklienB., & RossowI. (2008). Roles for researchers in community action projects to prevent alcohol and other drug problems. Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy, 15(4), 410–423.
18.
HolmilaM.KarlssonT., & WarpeniusK. (2010). Controlling teenagers' drinking: Effects of a community-based prevention project. Journal of Substance Use, 15(3), 201–214.
19.
HolmilaM., & WarpeniusK. (2007). A study on effectiveness of local alcohol policy: Challenges and solutions in the PAKKA project. Drugs: Education, Prevention, and Policy, 14(6), 529–541.
20.
HuckleT.ConwayK.CasswellS., & PledgerM. (2005). Evaluation of a regional community action intervention in New Zealand to improve age checks for young people purchasing alcohol. Health Promotion International, 20(2), 147–155.
21.
KnupferG. (1987). Drinking for health: The daily light drinker fiction. British Journal of Addiction, 82(5), 547–555.
22.
KumpferK. L. (1998). Selective prevention interventions: The Strengthening Families Program. In AsheryR. S.RobertsonE. B., & KumpferK. L. (Eds.), Drug abuse prevention through family interventions (pp. 160–207). Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.
23.
NilsenP. (2007). The how and why of community based injury prevention: A conceptual and evaluation model. Safety Science, 45(4), 501–521.
24.
OakleyA.StrangeV.BonellC.AllenE., Stephenson, J., & RIPPLE Study Team (2006). Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ, 332(7538), 413–416.
25.
PapeH.BaklienB., & RossowI. (2007). Villedende om rusforebygging i skolen [Misleading about substance abuse prevention in schools]. Norwegian Medical Journal, 127(10), 1399.
26.
PapeH.RossowI., & StorvollE. E. (2007). Report of study methodology for the school surveys 2004, 2005 and 2006 for evaluation of the Regional project. Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research.
RossowI., & BaklienB. (2010). Effectiveness of responsible beverage service: The Norwegian experiences. Contemporary Drug Problems, 37(1), 91–107.
29.
RossowI.KarlssonT., & RaitasaloK. (2008). Old enough for a beer? Compliance with minimum legal age for alcohol purchases in monopoly and other off-premise outlets in Finland and Norway. Addiction, 103(9), 1468–1473.
30.
SmithD. W.McCormickL. K.StecklerA. B., & McLeroyK. R. (1993). Teachers' use of health curricula: Implementation of Growing Healthy, project SMART, and the Teenage Health Teaching Modules. Journal of School Health, 63(8), 349–354.
31.
StafströmM. (2007). Preventing adolescent alcohol use: Processes and outcomes of a community-based intervention in Trelleborg. Oslo: Department of Health Sciences, Division of Social Medicine and Global Health.
32.
StafströmM.ÖstergrenP.-O.LarssonS.LindgrenB., & LundborgP. (2006). A community action programme for reducing harmful drinking behaviour among adolescents: The Trelleborg Project. Addiction, 101(6), 813–823.
33.
StrangeV.AllenE.OakleyA.BonellC.JohnsonA.StephensonJ. (2006). Integrating process with outcome data in a randomized controlled trial of sex education. Evaluation, 12(3), 330–352.
34.
WallinE. (2004). Responsible beverage service: Effects of a community action project. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
35.
WarpeniusK.HolmilaM., & MustonenH. (2010). Effects of a community intervention to reduce the serving of alcohol to intoxicated patrons. Addiction, 105(6), 1032–1040.
