The following table, taken from the March 2002 issue of Pediatrics gives us some interesting insights:
TABLE 1. Estimates of the Effects of Intervention Based on a
Logistic Regression Analysis with Adjustment for Child and
Family Baseline Characteristics and Clinic Pair
Alcohol/Tobacco Outcomes Adjusted * OR for Alcohol
and Tobacco Arm to
Safety Arm
Outcome 12 Months OR P Value
(95% CI)
Alcohol
Child ever drinker
Among all subjects 1.17 (0.92, 1.48) .20
Tobacco
Child ever smoked
Among all subjects 1.05 (0.80, 1.39) .71
Child ever used smokeless tobacco
Among all subjects 1.00 (0.39, 2.54) .99
Child and Parent Telephone Interviews
Intervention Arm Alcohol and Safety
Telephone Topics Tobacco
Parent Child Parent Child
Continued prevention communication
within family 97% 75% 77% 67%
Family policy with consequences in
place 50% 32% 46% 46%
Recent visit to pediatric practice 85% 83% 83% 85%
The project helps our family talk
about risks 89% 80% 85% 90%
The project has impact on me 66% 82% 76% 82%
TABLE 3. Baseline Demographic Characteristics
of Participating Children and Parents
Recommendations:
In light of the gravity of the prevailing situation, effective intervention strategies need to be implemented. Some of them include – “a legal imposition of minimum drinking age, screening and brief intervention, and increasing alcohol taxes” in order to discourage underage alcohol consumption and adverse health and social outcomes resulting from this it (Miller, et. al., .2007).
In addition to the above discussed school programs, the National Minimum Legal Drinking Age Act alongside the zero-tolerance laws have gone a long way in bringing down automobile accidents caused by teenagers. However, only a few more such intervention efforts have been implemented. Given that the few existing programs lack proper financial backing and wholehearted community involvement, a comprehensive plan of remedy is called for (Miller, et. al., .2007).