This article focuses on the shortcomings of experimental outcome evaluations.
MATERIAL
The study uses two studies of the alcohol prevention program Prime for Life (PFL) to illustrate problems associated with a ‘one dimensional’ goal focus and how implementation may affect the efficiency of an intervention.
Results
As evidence based practice often fails to acknowledge the importance of context and implementation quality in its quest to find ‘what works’, it is argued in the article that a wider perspective on efficiency is needed in evaluations of alcohol prevention.
CONSLUSIONS
To be able to find out what works and during what circumstances, evaluators need to look for a wider set of traits that constitute effective interventions.
AnderbergM., & DahlbergM. (2005): Reflections on How Research and Local Practice Can Evolve Together. NAD publication47: 71–95
2.
BaborT.F., & Biddle-HigginsJ.C. & SaundersJ.B., & MonteiroM.G. (2001): AUDIT: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Guidelines for Use in Primary Care.Geneva: World Health Organization
3.
BaborT.F., & CaetanoR., & CasswellR., & EdwardsG., & GiesbrechtN. (2010): Alcohol: no ordinary commodity – research and public policy. Second edition.Oxford: Oxford University Press
4.
BakerP., & YoungM., & ThomasR. (2006): Summary of Evidence: Systematic Reviews on Alcohol Dependence.Queensland Government, Australia
5.
BlomB., & MorénS. (2003): Explaining Human Change – On Generative Mechanism in Social Work Practice. Journal of Critical Realism2(1): 37–60
6.
BullockS. (2004): Alcohol, Drugs and Student Lifestyle! A Study of The Attitudes, Beliefs and Use of Alcohol and Drugs Among Swedish University Students. SoRAD Research Report 21. Stockholm university, Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs
7.
ChanA-W., & AltmanD.G. (2005): Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials on PubMed: Review of publications and survey of authors. British Medical Journal330, 753–756
8.
CookT.D. (2006): Criminal and Social Justice.London: SAGE Publications
9.
CuijpersP. (2002): Effective ingredients of drug prevention programs. A systematic Review. Addictive Behaviors27(6): 1009–1023
10.
DahmströmK. (1996): Från datainsamling till rapport – Att göra en statistisk undersökning (From Data Collection to Report – Performing a Statistical Study).Lund: Studentlitteratur
11.
DickersinK. (2005): Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In: RothsteinH., & SuttonA., & BorensteinM. (eds.): Publication Bias in Meta Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments.Chichester: John Wiley
12.
Dir.2007:161 Kommittédirektiv – Socialt råd (Committé Directive for the Social Council).Stockholm: Regeringskansliet
13.
DombrowskiS.U., & SniehottaF.F., & AvenellA., & CoyneJ.C. (2007): Towards a cumulative science of behaviour change: Do current conduct and reporting of behavioural interventions fall short of best practice?Psychology and Health22: 869–874.
14.
DurlakJ.A. (1998): Why program implementation is important. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community17(2): 5–18
15.
EggerM., & Davey SmithG., & AltmanD. (eds.) (2000): Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context.London: BMJ Books
16.
FHI (2003): Uppföljning av nationella hand-lingsplanen för att förebygga alkoholskador (A Follow-up of the National Alcohol Prevention Plan).Stockholm: Statens folkhälsoinstitut
17.
FHI (2008): Effekter av lokalt alkohol- och narkotikaförebyggande arbete (Outcomes of Local Alcohol and Drug Prevention Initatives).Östersund: Statens Folkhälsoinstitut
18.
FHI (2009): Det drogförebyggande arbetet i Sverige 2008. Rapport om det förebyggande arbetet mot alkohol-, narkotika-, tobaksoch dopningsproblem (Drog Prevention efforts in Sweden 2008. Report on the Prevention of Alcohol, Narcotics, Tobacco and Drugs). Östersund: Statens Folkhälsoinstitut
19.
FoxcroftD., & IrelandD. & Lister-SharpD., & LoweG., & BreenR. (2003): Longer-Term Primary Prevention for Alcohol Misuse in Young People: A Systematic Review. Addiction98: 397–411
20.
GendreauP. (1996): Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to be done. Criminal Justice and Behavior23: 144–161
21.
GendreauP., & AndrewsD.A. (2001): The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory 2000 (CPAI 2000).Saint John: University of New Brunswick
22.
HallgrenM., & KällménH., & LeifmanH., & SjölundT., & AndréassonS. (2009): Evaluation of an alcohol risk reduction program (PRIME for Life) in young Swedish military conscripts. Health Education109(2): 155–168
23.
HaraschiT.W., (1999): Employers and the Employment Option of the New Deal for Young Unemployed People: Employment additionality and its measurement.Institute for Employment Research. University of Warwick, England
24.
HopeT. (2005): Pretend it Doesn't Work: The ‘Anti-Social’ Bias in the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research11: 275–296
25.
KarlssonT., & TigerstedtC. (2004): Testing new models in Finnish, Norweigan and Swedish alcohol policies. Nordic Studies on Alcohol and Drugs21(English Supplement): 79–91
26.
Kriminalvården (2007): Kriminalvårdens FoU-strategi 2008–2010 (Swedish Prison and Probation Service – R&D Strategy 2008–2010).Norrköping: Kriminalvården
27.
LabS.P. (2007): Crime Prevention. Approaches, practices and evaluations.Cincinnati: LexisNexis
28.
LatessaE. (1999): What Works in Correctional Intervention?Southern Illinois University Law Journal23: 415–426
29.
LiljaJ., & GiotaJ., & LarssonS. (2004): Olika synsätt på utvärderingar av prevention-sprogram för skolor. (Different Views Upon Evaluations of School-based prevention programmes). Nordisk alkohol- och narkotikatidskrift21(4–5): 297–307
30.
McCordJ. (2003): Cures That Harm: Unanticipated Outcomes of Crime Prevention Programs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science587(1): 16–30
31.
MatthewsB., & Jones HubbardD., & LatessaE. (2001): Making the Next Step: Using Evaluability Assessment to Improve Correctional Programming. The Prison Journal81: 454–472
32.
MichiS., & FixsenD., & GrimshawJ., & EcclesM. (2009): Specifying and reporting complex behavior change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implementation Science4(1): 40
33.
NREPP (2009): Prime for Life Intervention Summary.National Registry of Evidence-based Programs and Practices, U.S.A.
PattonM.Q. (2000): A vison of Evaluation that Strengthens Democracy, paper from EES conference in Lausanne October 12 th–14th
36.
PetrosinoA. (2003): Om och varför? Den potentiella nyttan av att inkludera programteoriutvärderingar i metanalys (If and Why? The Potential Benefit of Including Program Theory Evaluations in Meta Analysis). Socvet 2–3–02
37.
PohoreckyL.A. (1991): Stress and alcohol interaction: An update of human research. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research15(3): 438–459
38.
Prop.1994/95:150 Bil.5 Medel för alkohol- och drogpolitiska åtgärder (Appendix 5: Funds for Alcohol and Drug Actions). Stockholm, Regeringskansliet
39.
Prop.2000/01:20 Nationell handlingsplan för att förebygga alkoholskador (National Plan of Action for Prevention of Alcohol Harm).Stockholm, Socialdepartementet
40.
Prop.2005/06:30 Nationella alkohol- och narkotikahandlingsplaner (National Alcohol and Drug Policies).Stockholm, Socialdepartementet
41.
ReederJ. (2010): Det tystade samtalet. Om staten, psykiatrin och försöken att undanröja det psykoanalytiska inflytandet (The Silenced Conversation. About the State, Psychiatry and the Efforts to Remove the Psychoanalytical Influence).Stockholm: Norsteds
42.
RileyB.L., & MacDonaldJ., & MansiO., & KothariA., & KurtzD., & von TettenbornL., & EdwardsN. (2008): Is reporting on interventions a weak link in understanding how and why they work? A preliminary exploration using community heart health exemplars. Implementation Science3: 27
43.
RothsteinH.R. (2007): Publication bias as a threat to the validity of meta-analytic results. Journal of Experimental Criminology4: 61–81
44.
SandersonI. (2000): Complexity, Evaluation and Evidence-Based Policy. Paper for European Evaluation Society, October 12–14th. Lausanne, Switzerland
45.
SandbergB. (2006): Utvärdering av Prime for Life – genomförande samt effekter av alkoliolpreventiv utbildning vid Örebro universitet (Evaluation of Prime for Life – Implementation and Outcomes of Alcohol Prevention Training at Örebro University). SoRAD Research report 38. Stockholm university, Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs
46.
SandbergB. (2007a): Prime for Life – kompletterande analyser samt metodologiska erfarenheter från utvärderingen av Prime for Life vid Örebro universitet (Prime for Life – Complementing Analysis and Methodological Experiences from the Evaluation of Prime for Life at Örebro University). SoRAD Research Report 41. Stockholm university, Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs
47.
SandbergB. (2007b): Utvärdering av Prime for Life inom Försvarsmakten (Evaluation of Prime for Life in the Swedish Armed Forces). SoRAD Research Report 44.Stockholm university, Centre for Social Research on Alcohol and Drugs
48.
SandbergB., & FaugertS. (2007): Perspektiv på utvärdering (Perspectives on Evaluation).Lund: Studentlitteratur
49.
SBU (2001): Behandling av alkohol- och narkotikaproblem. En evidensbaserad kunskapssammanställning (Treatment of Alcohol and Drug Problems. A Systematic Review of Evidence) Statens beredning för medicinsk utvärdering, Stockholm
50.
SjölundT., & AndréassonS. (2004): PRIME For Life, rapport II. Uppföljning av gymnasieelevers och värnpliktigas alkoholvanor fem månader efter genomgången kurs (Prime for Life, Report II. A Follow-up of High School Pupils’ and Military Conscripts’ Alcohol Use Five Months after the Program). STAD-Rapport 25. Stockholm förebygger alkohol- och drogproblem, Stockholm
51.
Statskontoret (2002): Utvärderingar och politik II (Evaluations and Politics II). Statskontoret2002: 21. Stockholm: Statskontoret
52.
SundellK., & SoydanH., & TengvaldK., & AnttilaS. (2009): From Opinion-Based to Evidence-Based Social Work: The Swedish Case. Research on Social Work Practice20: 714–722
53.
SuttonA., & AbramsK., & JonesD. (2001): An illustrated guide to the methods of meta-analysis. Journal of Evaluation of Clinical Practice7(2): 135–148
54.
TilleyN. (2000): Realistic Evaluation: An Overview. Paper presented at the Funding Conference of the Danish Evaluation Society, September 2000
55.
TilleyN. (ed.) (2002): Evaluation for Crime Prevention.Monsey: Criminal Justice Press
56.
VedungE. (1998): Utvärdering i politik och förvaltning (Evaluation in Politics and Public Management).Lund: Studentlitteratur
57.
WHO (2004): What are the most effective and cost-effective interventions in alcohol control?World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark
58.
WHO (2009): Handbook for action to reduce alcohol-related harm.World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
