AAA - PREVENT WP7 - NATIONAL REPORT TEMPLATE GOOD PRACTICES AND INTERVENTIONS FOR THE PREVENTION OF ALCOHOL USE AMONG JUVENILES IN EUROPE: NATIONAL INVENTORY Agnieszka Pisarska and Jacek Moskalewicz, Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, POLAND Widespread alcohol abuse among juveniles has a serious impact on society, the economy and public health. In order to obviate the consequences of alcohol abuse, state and local authorities have adopted many kinds of prevention programs, which vary considerably among countries. In some European countries, preventive interventions have been broadly implemented for many years, and in some cases they have been thoroughly evaluated scientifically. In other countries, preventive interventions have been fewer, and efforts to evaluate them have been less scientific. The aim of this phase of the European AAA-Prevent Project is to draw up an inventory of good preventive programs aimed at alcohol use among juveniles in European countries. The final report should enable policy-makers to discern which preventive interventions have proved effective or promising in the various countries and should indicate good practices targeting the prevention of alcohol consumption among juveniles. To this end, we have classified preventive interventions in three categories: - Macro initiatives (not included in this report): Laws and norms - Meso Initiatives: School Neighborhood and other community programs - Micro Initiatives: Family Individual Macro initiatives (policies) have already been dealt with in a previous phase of the project, and will not be included in this report. In the current phase, experts are required to make an inventory of good meso and micro initiatives in the field of the prevention of alcohol abuse among juveniles in their countries, in accordance with the suggestions below. In addition, two examples will need to be described: one at the meso level and the other at the micro level. 1
1. Alcohol prevention programs at the meso and micro levels in your country: inventory of good practices (roughly two pages) In this part, experts will describe the current situation of underage drinking and alcohol prevention strategies among young people in their countries. What is the focus of meso and micro initiatives/interventions/programs targeting alcohol consumption among juveniles? Which domains (individual, family, school, neighborhood) do they target? In which programs do national and local governments invest? Why these domains and programs? Have these points of interest changed over time? If so, how? What are the developments in research on this issue in your country? What do the experts think of the spectrum of interventions and programs on alcohol consumption among juveniles in the particular country. Is the offer sufficient? Are all domains (individual, family, school, neighborhood) covered? Do some domains overlap? This national review should be based both on the published scientific literature and on the "grey" literature (technical reports from government agencies or scientific research groups, working papers from research groups or committees, white papers, preprints, etc.). The criteria of inclusion of programs in this review are: a. Firstly, the prevention programs should explicitly include the prevention of underage drinking among their aims, even if other issues are targeted (e.g. drug use or abuse, etc.). b. Secondly, every program/intervention should be developed in accordance with a manual, text or defined guidelines, in order to make its characteristics and implementation clearly understandable and to enable the program/intervention to be replicated. The predicted results of the program should be mentioned. If the effectiveness of the program has been evaluated, this feature also should be mentioned, though details of the assessment need not be included in the report. Each prevention program should be classified according to five categories, depending on the level of intervention: individual, family, school, community, or multi-component (if different levels are involved), and a synthetic synoptic table (like the one reported below) should be drawn up; this should be divided into five sections, corresponding to the above-mentioned categories, and please provide a description of each program (see an example in school interventions) and a comment on its results. 2
1. Individual level Intervention name Type 1 Age targeted Fred goes Net Selective 14-21-year Szkolna Interwencja Profilaktyczna (School-based intervention for drug using students) Indicated 11-18-year Period 2 Dimension 3 Main results Sources 4 2009 - Eighty specialists from 50 Drug Prevention and Treatment Centres in Poland were trained to conduct the program. Data on a number of youngsters involved will be available this year. 2001 - Seventy specialists from the whole country are certified to conduct training for school staff. The number of students who received intervention is unknown. Pilot study among youth (N=131, posttest only), indicated that program is well received by participants. No data on program outcomes in Poland. Only process evaluation was conducted, data on impact of the program on drug use by students are limited (i.e. based on perception of teachers who run interventions). National Bureau for Drug Prevention website Borucka A. et al., 2003 Okulicz- Kozaryn K., et al., 2003 Prevention activities can be classified along a number of dimensions: according to the goal of program, the strategy (e.g. skills training, peer education), the institution where a program is implemented (the school, the family) or target population (universal, selective and indicated 1 (for everyone in an eligible population), selective (for members of population subgroups at higher risk), or indicated (for those with existing alcohol problems). 2 Year when the intervention was started. 3 Number of individuals, schools or communities involved. 4 Articles, reports, documents, etc. 3
prevention) (Paglia & Room, 1999). Other possible classifications distinguish between approaches aimed at changing knowledge, attitudes or behaviour of individuals and programs aimed at changing environment these individuals live in. Traditionally, school-based programs designed for groups of students are classified as programs influencing individuals i.e. students and their parents (NIDA, 1997). Programs aimed at changing school policy toward drug /alcohol use by students should be classified as programs focused on school environment. On the other hand, according to EMCDDA guidelines universal prevention intervenes on population level, selective prevention at (vulnerable) group level, and indicated prevention on individual level (see: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/themes/prevention/responses-in-eu) Therefore, we decided to include two programs: Szkolna Interwencja Profilaktyczna (School-based Intervention for Drug Using Students) and Fred goes Net into the category of individual level programs as targeting individuals who abuse substances. Fred goes to Net is a Polish adaptation of the program coordinated by Landschaftsverband Westfalen Lippe- Koordinationsstelle Sucht, Münster. It is an intervention program focused on illegal drug use by youth. Polish adaptation of the program, however, includes alcohol use as an extra goal of intervention. Program is coordinated by the National Bureau for Drug Prevention. Szkolna Interwencja Profilaktyczna (School-based Intervention for Drug Using Students) has been worked out in the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology. The program is directed toward teachers, pedagogues and school psychologists working in primary, middle and high schools. During the two-stage course of training they are encouraged to implement the intervention into their school prevention system. The primary goal of intervention is to help students to cope with the problem of drug/alcohol use by undertaking the specified procedure which consists in delivering students and their parents appropriate information and recommending ways out. The second goal of the intervention is to prevent drug/alcohol use by reinforcing rules against drug/alcohol use at school and implementing consistently the intervention in the case of breaking these rules by students. The results of evaluation showed that the school-based intervention could be useful for school staff and would be suitable for their potential skills. The study, however, allowed to identify some barriers related to teachers attitudes and believes. The characteristic and results of evaluation of the School-based Intervention for Drug Using Students are available on EMCDDA the best practice portal: (http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index52035en.html?project_id=6196&tab=overview) 4
According to data collected by the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology between 2003 2009 three thousand teachers received training how to implement the intervention toward drug/alcohol using students. 2. Family level Intervention Age targeted Period Dimension Main results Sources Program Wzmacniania Rodzin (The Strengthening Families Program) 10-14 year 2008 - Until February 2012, 647 families took part in the program Process evaluation indicated that program can be feasible in Polish families. Okulicz- Kozaryn K., Dorożko L. (2008) Okulicz- Kozaryn K., (2009) Some of the school-based programs implemented in Poland have a family components. For example, Program Domowych Detektywów (Slick Tracy Home Team Program) includes the homebased activities that are designed to facilitate parent child communication about alcohol and other substance use and to establish effective family rules to deal with under-age drinking. Also program Trzeci Elementarz (Third Primer) includes scenarios of meeting for parents organized in school. According to our knowledge, an only family-based prevention program in Poland is Program Wzmacniania Rodzin (The Strengthening Families Program). This program is the Polish version of the US-developed intervention for preventing alcohol and other drug use and problems amongst young people. In 2007 an adaptation of the program was initiated, currently evaluation of the program effectiveness and efficacy is conducted. 5
3. School level Intervention Age targeted Period Dimension Main results Sources Debata (Debate) 11-13-year 1998 - More than 250 specialists were trained to implement the program, the number of students who attended the program activities is unknown. Qualitative study (FGI, N =15) indicates that the program has positive effect on students knowledge related to consequences of drinking, normative beliefs and attitudes toward alcohol. Wojcieszek K. (1998) Sochocki M. (2010) Dziękuję NIE (No, thank you) Trzeci Elementarz, czyli Program Siedmiu Kroków (Third Primer or the Seven Step Program) 13-16-year 12-17-year 1992 - Approximately 10 500 teachers can conduct the program as they received a program manual. A number of participating students is unknown, however, it can guesstimated that more than 250 000. 1993 - According to an assessment carried out in the year 2000 approx. 1.5 million students attended this program. Between 2004 2011 approx. 133 000 students and 71 000 teachers took part in the program activities. Evaluation among 9-12-year (pretest and posttest with control group, N = 3807) showed that the program had an impact on alcohol use but only among less frequent drinkers. Evaluation among 14-15-years old students, (pretest posttest with control group, N= 166) showed improvement of students knowledge about alcohol related issues. Program had no effect on alcohol use among participants. Aranowska et al., (1993) Arendarska A. et al., (1998) Bobrowski K. (1995) Bobrowski K., Ostaszewski K. (1997) Sochocki M. (2000) Wojcieszek K., (2000) 6
Przygotowanie do profilaktyki domowej (Introduction to home prevention) Part of Third Primer designed for parents of students attending program. 1995- Between 2004 2011 approx. 100 000 parents took part in the program activities. No data Arendarska A., Wojcieszek K. (1995) Program Domowych Detektywów (Slick Tracy Home Team Program) and Fantastyczne Możliwości (Amazing Alternatives) 10-11-year 11-12-year 1999-2004 - There is a group of 32 PDD instructors and 16 FM instructors who were certified to conduct training courses for teachers. Approximately 130 000 students attended PDD and 19 000 attended FM program. See example 1 below See example 1 below Spójrz Inaczej (Have a Second Look) Program consists of three parts for: 7-9-year 10-12-year and 13-15-year 1997 - More than 20 000 teachers were trained to conduct the program, a number of students who took part in the program activities is unknown. Evaluation was conducted only among 7-9-year- old children. No data related to impact of the program on alcohol or other drugs use by students are available. Kołodziejczyk A. et al., (1997) Deptuła M. (2001) Ostaszewski K. (2003) 7
Tak czy Nie (Yes or Not) 13-18-year 1993 - Approximately 1000 teachers were trained to conduct the program. A number of student attending the program is unknown. Evaluation among primary and high school students (pretest posttest, N= 1061) showed improvement of students knowledge on alcohol addiction. Some students expressed the need of help due to alcohol related problems of their own or their families Skrzypczyk W. (1997) Dragan M., Oleksy B. (2006) Jestem O.K. (I am O.K.) 12-13-year 2001 - Approximately 1000 teachers were trained to conduct the program. A number of student attending theprogram is unknown. No published data. Data from short questionnaires filled-in by students indicated that the program is perceived as useful. Witold Skrzypczyk personal communication Trzy Koła (Three Circles) 7-13-year 1998 - Number of students attending the program is unknown. Evaluation conducted among 10-14 year old students (pretest and posttest with control group, N = 890) showed positive effect of the program on alcohol use among younger participants (10-12-year ). After the program, children from experimental group drank alcohol less often than children from comparison group. Wolniewicz-Grzelak B., Nowakowska A. (2000) Wolniewicz-Grzelak B., Grzelak J. (2001) 8
Korekta (Correction) Korekta - Rewizja (Correction Revision / selective 18-year and above 16-year 1999 - Approx. 600 trainers, number of young people attending the program is unknown. Evaluation of the Correction Revision program among 16-17 year old students (pre and posttest, N = 53) showed positive impact on student beliefs and knowledge on alcohol related problems and their intention to drink and abuse alcohol in the future. Wojcieszek K. (2004) Sochocki M. (2010) NOE (Noah) / selective 15-19-year 1993 - Seventy 3-person teams were trained to conduct the program. Approx. million students attended. Evaluation among 13-14 year students (pretest posttest, with control group, N=418) indicated improvement of students knowledge about alcohol related problems (including alcohol dependence). Program had no effect on alcohol use among students and their intention to drink in the future. Wojcieszek K. (1997) Grzelak S. (1995) Unplugged 12-14-year 2006 - A group of 22 trainers prepared approx. 100 teachers to conduct the program. No Polish evaluation Borkowska A. (2011) Szlaban (Barrier) Program for parents of schoolchildren (7-18-year ) 2006 - Unknown No published data. Wojcieszek, K. (2006) 9
Bezpieczna szkoła. Społeczność szkolna przeciw przemocy i wykluczeniu. (Safe school. School community against violence and social exclusion) 15-19-year 2008 - No data Guidelines for teachers are available on the Praesterno Foundation website. http://praesterno.pl/fio2008. Evaluation (posttest) among students from 254 classes (approx. 6000 students) indicated that the program is well perceived by its participants. Praesterno Foundation website Selective Młodzieżowe Ochotnicze Pogotowie Rówieśnicze (Youth Voluntary Emergency Service) 13 19-year 2002 - Approximately 1000 student - leaders of the program were trained. No published data. Witold Skrzypczyk - personal communication Selective 10
The 1990s witnessed significant rise of alcohol education. That time the State Agency for Prevention of Alcohol Related Problems (PARPA) built foundations of so called mass prevention which consisted of structured education programs and cascade training of educators in program implementation (Ostaszewski, Bobrowski, 2008). A community of educators emerged, mostly around the program Elementarz (Primer). Elementarz (Primer) was by no means the most popular program. Since 1993 it has been up-dated and its subsequent versions were called Drugi Elementarz (Second Primer) and Trzeci elementarz (Third Primer). The program is implemented in a class room by trained teachers. It is composed of 8 scenarios to be implemented in a class room and 3 scenarios of meetings with parents. Very popular were also short (2-3 hours) programs targeting large groups of children and youth such as Korekta, Debata and Noe (Correction, Debate, Noah). The latter program intended to screen out children form families with alcohol problems in order to include them into more specific program of activities (e.g. within a program Odczuwaj, Ufaj, Mów - Feel, Trust, Speak). Only two programs, namely Program Domowych Detektywów (Slick Tracy Home Team Program) and Fantastyczne Możliwości (Amazing Alternatives) proved to have impact on reducing drinking among teenagers. All remaining programs had no impact on drinking but some of them reinforced attitudes of non-drinkers. By the end of the 1990s, due to subsequent amendment of the Alcohol Law, PARPA gave up direct funding of education programs as this task was imposed on local municipalities. In 2002 Minister of Education signed an Ordinance obliging schools to work out alcohol and drug education program and its implementation. Since then municipalities and schools work out programs of their own (often being compiled from other ideas and scenarios) and/or buy programs offered by NGOs. According to PARPA, by 2009 main stream of alcohol prevention consists in individual programs, one-time initiatives, festivities, competitions and offering leisure time alternatives (Frączek, 2010). As a rule, all those programs are not evaluated. Of the programs recommended by the Centre for Education Development of the Ministry of Education (ORE), PARPA and the National Bureau for Drug Prevention (KBPN), the most widely used is a program Spójrz Inaczej (Have a Second Look) (as it can be seen in the table above there are no evaluation studies which would confirm its impact on drinking or drug taking). In general, programs recommended by the ORE, PARPA and KBPN constitute examples of good practice which means that experts consider them worthwhile recommendation. Just few of them, first of all Program Domowych Detektywów and Fantastyczne Możliwości were evaluated years ago and confirmed their impact. Even those two need to be reevaluated with more advanced evaluation methodologies. Construction and dissemination of new, evidence-based programs has to face numerous barriers (Ostaszewski, Bobrowski, 2008). Nevertheless, efforts are made to improve quality of education programs. A special group of experts was established to recommend relevant programs. The expert group consists in representatives of PARPA, KBPN and Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology. Its first task was to work out minimal standards for constructing, implementing and evaluating education programs. New programs may be authorized at three levels: promising, good practice, 11
effective (model program). This system of recommendation or authorization will set standards and have regulatory role in the market of alcohol and drug education (Ostaszewski, Bobrowski, 2008). 4. Community level Intervention Age targeted Period Dimension Main results Sources Program zapobiegania narkomanii ODLOT (Prevention and Management of Drug Abuse in Poland TAKE OFF) No specific age targeted but special focus was on school children and their parents. 1994 - Community awareness rising, leisure time alternatives, peer education, multistage training of local experts, methadone maintenance and harm reduction measures. See example 2 below See example 2 below No systematic data on dissemination are available. However, around 1.5 thousand copies of a manual (preventive package) were distributed. After one year 500 more copies were printed and sold out in response to existing demand. 5. Multi-component Intervention Age targeted Period Dimension Main results Sources Program zapobiegania narkomanii ODLOT (Prevention and Management of Drug Abuse in Poland TAKE OFF) See example 2 for details 2. Description of two models of good practices in your country According to your national experts, you should choose two model programs in your country (one at the meso and one at the micro level) and describe them as in the two examples below (see prevention program examples 1 and 2). Moreover, you are requested to comment in this part as follows: 12
a. Why did the experts choose the best practices described in the examples? Are these practices the only ones found? If not, why have these particular ones been selected? Program Domowych Detektywów (Slick Tracy Home Team Program) and Fantastyczne Możliwości (Amazing Alternatives) are programs of documented impact. In EDDRA data base classified as model programs (the highest level of program quality). b. What do they think of the spectrum of prevention programs on alcohol consumption among juveniles in the particular country? Is the offer sufficient? Are all domains (individual, family, school, neighborhood) covered? There is insufficient interest In comprehensive, community-based preventive or family oriented programs. Majority of school-based education programs are either not evaluated or evaluation did not confirm their impact on behavior. Prevention program example 1 Name: Program Domowych Detektywów and Fantastyczne Możliwości Program Domowych Detektywów and its continuation Fantastyczne Możliwości are the Polish version of the US Project Northland: Slick Tracy Home Team Program and Amazing Alternatives. Goals: To prevent under-age drinking and students intention to drink in the future. The specific program objectives are: to strengthen selected protective factors related to alcohol use i.e.: students skills of identifying and resisting social pressure to drink alcohol and perceived peer norms against drinking as well as to weaken pro-alcohol attitudes; to facilitate parent-child communication about alcohol and other risky behaviours; to improve students knowledge on alcohol advertising and modelling, peer pressure and the consequences of alcohol consumption. Theoretical framework: This two-year program is based on grounded psychosocial theories and the results of the prevention research. The main prevention strategies utilized in the program are modelling and strengthening desired child behaviour by significant peer and parental involvement. These strategies are drawn from several theories: theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), social learning theory (Bandura, 1986) and problem-behaviour theory (Jessor, 1987, 1998). Prevention research has proved that parental involvement is one of the key elements in effective programmes for pre-adolescents and that peer leaders participation may have positive impact on programme effectiveness. Domain (individual, family, school, neighbourhood): family and school Target group: students attending the fourth, fifth and sixth year of Polish primary schools. The programs are conducted by school teachers and school pedagogues in classrooms. Teachers and school pedagogues are trained in 8-hour training course and provided with relevant materials. There is a group of 27 instructors who were certified by the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology to organize and conduct training courses for teachers. Age targeted: 10-13 years 13
Method: Program Domowych Detektywów consists of five and Fantastyczne Możliwości consists of six teacher- and peer-led classroom sessions combined with parent-child activities to be undertaken at home. The classroom sessions themes are related to reasons for alcohol drinking, consequences of underage alcohol use, peer pressure and attractive alcohol-free leisure activities. The program for parents is based on four booklets, one to be worked through each week, designed to facilitate parent-child communication about alcohol and other substance use and to establish effective family rules to deal with under-age drinking. At the beginning and the end of the programme, a family evening is organised where pupils present posters to their parents and participate in other fun activities. The entire programme requires about 12 (Program Domowych Detektywów) and 14 (Fantastyczne Możliwości) weeks to complete. Period: since 1999 (Program Domowych Detektywów) and 2004 (Fantastyczne Możliwości) Literature: Bobrowski K., Kocoń K., Pisarska A. (2005) Efekty dwuletniego programu profilaktyki alkoholowej. (The results of the two-year alcohol prevention program). Alkoholizm i Narkomania, 18, 3, 25 41 Ostaszewski K., Bobrowski K., Borucka A., Okulicz-Kozaryn K., Pisarska A., Perry C., Williams C. (1998) Program Domowych Detektywów. Adaptacja amerykańskiego programu profilaktyki alkoholowej dla młodzieży we wczesnym okresie dojrzewania (A Polish adaptation of the US alcohol primary prevention programme for young adolescents). Alkoholizm i Narkomania, 3, 339-60. Ostaszewski K., Bobrowski K., Borucka A., Okulicz-Kozaryn K., Pisarska A.(2000): Ocena skuteczności programu wczesnej profilaktyki alkoholowej "Program Domowych Detektywów" (Outcome evaluation of the alcohol primary prevention program "Program Domowych Detektywow"). Alkoholizm i Narkomania, 13, 1; 83-103. Ostaszewski K., Bobrowski K, Borucka A., Okulicz-Kozaryn K., Pisarska, A. (2000) : Chapter 7. Evaluating innovative drug-prevention programmes: Lessons learned. [In:] Evaluation - a key tool for improving drug prevention. EMCDDA Scientific Monograph Series No 5, European Commission, EMCDDA, 75-85. Manuals or website: teacher manual and peer leader manual, and booklets for students. There is no website dedicated to these programs, however, information can be found on the EMCDDA Best Practice Portal: http://www.emcdda.europa.eu/html.cfm/index52035en.html?project_id=pl0308&tab=overview 1. Evaluation: yes or not Yes If yes, efficacy according to formulated goals and effectiveness The evaluation of the two year program was carried out in a quasi-experimental design among over 700 students. Results showed that program has a beneficial effect on students attitudes toward alcohol and knowledge about consequences of alcohol drinking by adolescents. Students participating in the program, in comparison to the reference group, were less likely to drink alcohol in the company of peers. Moreover, program was effective in terms of decreasing prevalence of drunkenness. 14
Prevention program example 2 Name: Program zapobiegania narkomanii ODLOT Prevention and Management of Drug Abuse in Poland TAKE OFF Aim: To demonstrate that drug prevention is possible and feasible in local communities affected by transformation crisis. Goals: to establish concise and comparable data on a wide range drug and drug related issues, relating to the test communities of the project to increase public concern about drug abuse and the necessity for prevention initiatives at community level, especially those addressed to young people to facilitate the implementation of prevention initiatives at community level to provide school and primary health professionals with skills and techniques for the dissemination of preventive approaches and strategies to assist change in treatment policy and organization to establish organizational structures for the continuation of increased awareness at community level to produce materials and strategies for the use throughout Poland and other countries in the region. Theoretical framework: action research Domain (individual, family, school, neighbourhood): school, family, community Age targeted: school children and their parents Method: Public education (educational campaign aimed at increasing public concern on drug use and convincing inhabitants that prevention activities should be undertaken as well as promoting the project) Capacity building (series of training sessions, seminars and workshops for local authorities, community leaders, health professionals, teachers, parents, peer leaders) Offering leisure time opportunities (after-school lessons, theatre performances, sport activities, mass events) Working with parents (meetings and workshops with parents, advice and counselling at local centre) Reintegration of drug addicts Period: 1994-15
Literature: Moskalewicz J. Wolniewicz-Grzelak B. (eds.) (1996) Pakiet Prewencyjny: Program Zapobiegania Narkomanii Odlot, Instytut Psychiatrii i Neurologii, Ośrodek Współpracy ze Światową Organizacją Zdrowia, Komisja Europejska, Warszawa. Moskalewicz J., Sierosławski J., Świątkiewicz G., Zamecki K., Zieliński A. (1999) Prevention and management of drug abuse in Poland. Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw. Manuals or website: Prevention and Community Action Package set of nine booklets and video materials which summarize the experiences of the two pilot communities and formulates guidelines for other communities. Evaluation: yes If yes, efficacy according to formulated goals and effectiveness Pre- and post-test evaluation confirmed high visibility of the program, more positive attitudes towards addicts. Percentage of 12-month abstainers among school children increased. Juvenile delinquency showed downward trend compared with control community. References : 1. Aranowska E., Mieszalski S., Morawski J., Grudziak-Sobczyk E. (1993) Program wychowania w trzeźwości pt. Dziękuję nie. Alkoholizm i Narkomania, 14, 62 85. 2. Arendarska A., Czapczyńska A., Kalenik- Moch D., Mellibruda J., Pacewicz A., Wierzejska E. (1998) Drugi Elementarz, czyli program siedmiu kroków. Program profilaktyki dla młodzieży, nauczycieli i rodziców. Warszawa. 3. Bobrowski K., Ostaszewski, K. (1997): Ocena skuteczności programu profilaktyki alkoholowej "Noe + Drugi Elementarz". Problemy Alkoholizmu, Nr 7, 6-9. 4. Borucka A., Pisarska A., Okulicz-Kozaryn K. (2003) Ocena przydatności i funkcjonowania metody interwencji profilaktycznej w szkole. Medycyna Wieku Rozwojowego, Nr 1, cz. II, t. VII, 157-171. 5. Borkowska A. (2011) Program przeciwdziałania przyjmowaniu substancji uzależniających przez uczniów Unplugged. Serwis Informacyjny. Narkomania, 3,55, 18-23. 6. Dragan M., Oleksy B. Ocena zapotrzebowania na działania profilaktyczne w programie Tak czy Nie. [In:] Deptuła, M. (eds.) Diagnostyka, profilaktyka i socjoterapia w teorii i praktyce pedagogicznej. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu im. K. Wielkiego. Bydgoszcz. 7. Deptuła M. (2001) Propozycja ewaluacji wyników programu wychowawczo-profilaktycznego Spójrz inaczej realizowanego w klasach I-III szkoły podstawowej. [In:] Grzelak J. Sochocki M. (eds.) Ewaluacja profilaktyki problemów dzieci i młodzieży, Pracownia Profilaktyki Problemowej, Warszawa, 231-258. 8. Grzelak S. (1995) Ocena skuteczności realizacji studialnej programu Noe. Ewaluacja sumatywna, Alkoholizm i Narkomania, 2,19, 63-78. 9. Fatyga B., Fluderska G., Sochocki M., Wojcieszek K. (2000) Wprowadzenie. [In:] Społeczny świat Drugiego Elementarza. Fundacja ETOH, Warszawa. 10. Frączek R. (2010) Dodatkowa ankieta PARPA 2009. Raport Państwowej Agencji Rozwiązywania Problemów Alkoholowych, Warszawa. 11. Kołodziejczyk A., Czemierowska E., Kołodziejczyk T. (1997) Spójrz Inaczej. Program zajęć wychowawczo- profilaktycznych. Wydawnictwo ATE, Skarżysko-Kamienna. 12. Okulicz-Kozaryn K., Borucka A., Pisarska A. (2003): Wprowadzanie do szkół metody interwencji wobec ucznia sięgającego po środki psychoaktywne bariery we współpracy z rodzicami i ich pokonywanie. Medycyna Wieku Rozwojowego, Nr 1, cz. II, t. VII, 173-192. 16
13. Okulicz-Kozaryn, K., Dorożko, L. (2008). Adaptacja programu profilaktyki alkoholowej dla nastolatków w wieku 10-14 lat i ich rodziców. [In:] Okulicz-Kozaryn, K., Ostaszewski, O. (eds.) Promocja Zdrowia Psychicznego badania i działania w Polsce. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Instytutu Psychiatrii i Neurologii. 14. Okulicz-Kozaryn K. (2009) Ewaluacja Programu Wzmacniania Rodziny. Serwis Informacyjny. Narkomania. 4(48), 11-15. 15. Okulicz-Kozaryn K. (2010) Aneks [In:] Przewodnik metodyczny po programach promocji zdrowia psychicznego i profilaktyki. Fundacja ETOH, Warszawa, 97-167. 16. Ostaszewski K., Bobrowski K. (2008) Polityka i profilaktyka. Bariery w rozwoju programów opartych na naukowej wiedzy. Rozdz. [In:] Okulicz-Kozaryn, K., Ostaszewski, O. (eds.) Promocja Zdrowia Psychicznego badania i działania w Polsce. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Instytutu Psychiatrii i Neurologii, 53-76. 17. National Institute on Drug Abuse (1997). Preventing drug use among children and adolescents. A research-base guide. U.S. National Institutes of Health, Washington. 18. Skrzypczyk W. (1997) Program profilaktyki uzależnień dla młodzieży Tak czy Nie. PROM, Łódź. 19. Sochocki M. (2001) Wiadomości i ocena Programu. [In:] Fatyga B., Fluderska G., Sochocki M., Wojcieszek K. (eds.) Społeczny świat Drugiego Elementarza. Fundacja ETOH, Warszawa. 20. Sochocki M. (2010) Ewaluacja pierwszej edycji projektu Rewizja Korekta cz. I. Remedium, 4, 206, 26-27. 21. Sochocki M. (2010) Ewaluacja pierwszej edycji projektu Rewizja Korekta cz. II. Remedium, 5, 207, 24-25. 22. Sochocki M. (2010) Debata o Debacie. Remedium, 2, 204, 18-19. 23. Wojcieszek K. (1998) Debata. Propozycja scenariusza zajęć profilaktycznych w zakresie problemów alkoholowych dla klas VI-VIII. Remedium, 3, 61, 18-24. 24. Wojcieszek K., NOE (1997) NOE cz. I i II. Program profilaktyczny dla młodzieży, Warszawa. 25. Wojcieszek K. (2000) Skuteczność programu Drugi Elementarz uczniowie. [In.] Fatyga B., Fluderska G., Sochocki M., Wojcieszek K. (eds. )Społeczny świat Drugiego Elementarza. Fundacja ETOH, Warszawa. 26. Wojcieszek K. (2004) Program profilaktyczny Korekta zastosowania i możliwości rozwoju. Remedium, 3, 133, 20-21. 27. Wojcieszek K. (2006) Program profilaktyczny SZLABAN. Interwencja wobec sprzedaży alkoholu nieletnim, PARPA, Warszawa. 28. Wolniewicz-Grzelak B. (1998) Propozycje dla wychowawców klas: Trzy Koła. Zeszyt 1. Fundacja Wychowawców i Młodzieży Prom, Warszawa. 29. Wolniewicz-Grzelak B., Nowakowska A. (2000 and 2002) Propozycje dla wychowawców klas: Trzy Koła. Zeszyty 2-3. Fundacja Wychowawców i Młodzieży Prom, Warszawa. 30. Wolniewicz-Grzelak B., Grzelak J. Ł. (2001) Ocena skuteczności Projektu Trzy koła. [In:] Grzelak J, Sochocki M. (eds.) Ewaluacja profilaktyki problemów dzieci i młodzieży. Pracownia Profilaktyki Problemowej, Warszawa, 259-281. 31. National Bureau for Drug prevention website: http://www.kbpn.gov.pl/portal?id=106315 32. Praesterno Foundation website: http://praesterno.pl/fio2008 17