Plenary Session 1

Plenary Session 2

Poster Session 1

Parallel Session 1.1: SCHOOLS, MENTAL HEALTH, AND WELLBEING

Parallel Session 1.2: ILLICIT SUBSTANCES

Parallel Session 1.3: ALCOHOL

Parallel Session 1.4: INNOVATIONS IN PREVENTION

Parallel Session 1.5: EARLY CAREER SESSION 1

Parallel Session 2.1 - The Prevention Workforce: An Emerging New Identity

One of the greatest challenges facing the prevention field is in the establishment of a professional workforce. For decades prevention professionals struggled to define themselves as being members of a legitimate, well-defined field and not step-children of other disciplines. With the creation of the U.S. and E.U. Societies for Prevention Research, the publication of the International Standards on Drug Use Prevention (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime) and of the European Drug Prevention Quality Standards (European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction), and, most recently the development of the Universal Prevention Curriculum (Applied Prevention Science International) and in association with the International Consortium of Universities for Drug Demand Reduction, the prevention field, specifically the substance use prevention field, is well-poised to be established as a bone fide profession. Several challenges lie ahead—integrating prevention science into practice, the invisible nature of prevention diffused over many settings, and, the inconsistency of service delivery that leads to erratic funding over time and no structured career paths for prevention professionals. The panel will first address the professional needs of four levels of prevention professionals defining special attributes of each. These include the policy maker at all government levels; the program planner/decision maker at the local level; the prevention worker implementing prevention interventions/policies; and the newcomer either trained already in some discipline such as education, social work, public health who is new to prevention and the student who is in college or university who could have a focus/major in prevention science and its application. Important to these presentations is a discussion of what are next steps in creating prevention workforce and its new identity.

Parallel Session 2.2 - EPPIC: Exchanging Prevention Practices on Polydrug Use among Youth in Criminal Justice Systems

EPPIC (Exchanging Prevention Practices on Polydrug Use among Youth in Criminal Justice Systems) is a three year European project funded by the Third EU Health Programme 2014-2020 (Chafea). It focuses on prevention and addressing all types of illicit drug use among young people (15-24) who are in touch with the criminal justice system. The project involves partners in six European countries (Austria, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Poland and UK).  A range of qualitative approaches have been used to identify innovative prevention approaches and projects; to collect new information: on the drug using trajectories of young people in the criminal justice system and on their perceptions and experiences of interventions; and to examine the views of service providers on prevention approaches for this target group.  The papers in this special session will examine some of the preliminary findings from the project focusing on the following themes: coercion and the criminal justice system; drug using and offending careers; diversity and prevention initiatives; best practice and quality standards for those in touch with the CJS; the relationship between legislation and prevention and the development of holistic approaches and interventions.

Parallel Session 2.3 - How to study and apply effective components

Evidence based prevention and treatment programs do not always show the expected effectiveness in ‘real world’ situations. This might be explained by an inadequate fit between program techniques and the service context. To improve this fit we are moving beyond the traditional program protocols and examine effective components. With the current evaluation approach it is impossible to establish whether a program protocol is the most effective approach. By examining to which extent components are associated with effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) current programs can be improved by including effective components or excluding ineffective components. Additionally, new programs can be developed based on effective components. Hence, a modular approach is used as a new technique to adjust or design interventions. This will improve the effectiveness of programs and minimize possible negative effects of the program.

In this symposium, first Dr. Melendez-Torres will present what types of components there are and which methods can be used for elicitation. Then, Mertens will present results of her meta-analysis concerning which components appear to be effective or ineffective components in secondary school based prevention programs. Third, Dr. Kjøbli will elaborate on how the effectiveness of components can be rigorously evaluated and how to use this knowledge to improve interventions or assemble them as a package. The next presenter, Dr. Skeen will discuss how to develop an intervention based on common components and test this program’s effectiveness. She will relate this information to her current WHO project. Lastly, Prof. Weisz will act as a discussant to give his insights concerning the research field of effective components and future directions for research in this field.

Parallel Session 2.4: PARENTS AND FAMILIES

Parallel Session 2.5: EARLY CAREER SESSION 2

SPECIAL SESSION: Embracing ‘failure’ in prevention science: how can we promote a more open and honest response to trial results showing that interventions ‘don’t work’ or cause harm?

In fields such as aviation, learning from failure to achieve desired outcomes is an embedded process intended to optimise performance. In health and social care, by contrast, it is often not clear how learning from failure affects the commissioning of services or research; indeed, there can be a tendency to cover up or explain away such events. We see evidence of this behaviour in prevention science when trial results show no or harmful effects. Examples include not publicising findings, conducting spurious sub-group analyses or attributing the outcome post hoc to real or perceived weaknesses in trial design or execution. This is unhelpful for several reasons, not least that it contributes to research ‘waste’, undermines respect for science and potentially stifles risk-taking innovation, at best leading to incremental change. This symposium explores common policy and research responses to finding that an intervention is ineffective or harmful, such as dismissing the results, decommissioning the intervention, continuing with the ‘failed’ intervention in the absence of a better option or because it meets other criteria, and adapting the intervention and testing those adaptations. Some of these responses are illustrated through case study papers on null effect trials in subject areas such as obesity, social-emotional learning and early years support. Each case study paper describes the trial results, what happened next and, as best as can be established, why. The anchor paper suggests that the nature of each stakeholder’s response(s) is affected by, inter alia, the nature of the ‘failure’, how much they have invested in the intervention (financially, psychologically, politically and organisationally), the extent to which they accept the trial findings, the availability (or lack) or alternatives, and whether they buy into the evidence-based practice paradigm. It advances several strategies to promote a more open and honest approach towards trials of interventions that show no or harmful effects. These strategies are categorised as ‘pre-empting’, ‘preparing for’, ‘acknowledging’ and ‘responding to’ such findings. The main message from the symposium is that the real failure in prevention science is a failure to learn from and act on disappointing results.

Parallel Session 3.1: SUPPORTING THE USE OF EVIDENCE BASED PREVENTION IN PRACTICE AND POLICY

Parallel Session 3.2: ADVANCES IN PREVENTION SCIENCE METHODOLOGY

Parallel Session 3.3: FOCUS ON POPULATION APPROACHES IN PREVENTION

Parallel Session 3.4: DIET AND PHYSICAL HEALTH

Parallel Session 3.5: RISK AND RESILIENCE

Plenary 3

Poster Session 2

Parallel Session 4.1: THE EUPC

Parallel Session 4.2: ENABLING CHANGE IN PREVENTION

Parallel Session 4.3: CRITICAL DISCUSSIONS IN PREVENTION

Parallel Session 4.4: (RE)DESIGNING PREVENTION SERVICES AND SYSTEMS

Parallel Session 4.5: NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN EVIDENCE BASED PREVENTION

Plenary 4

Presidents' Prize Plenary Talk given by Dr Kirsten Mehlig

EUSPR 2018 Conference Prize Winners