De Carlos Oliveira Matheus, Mendes-Sousa Marília, Soares-Santos Luís Eduardo, Valente Juliana Y, Caetano Sheila C, Sanchez Zila M
Department of Preventive Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Department of Psychiatry, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Drug Alcohol Rev. 2025 Nov;44(7):2041-2056. doi: 10.1111/dar.70038. Epub 2025 Sep 18.
This systematic review of community-based environmental prevention strategies seeks to understand their characteristics, examine their effectiveness and identify challenges for preventing alcohol use among adolescents.
A comprehensive search was conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and PsycINFO through December 2024. Eligible studies were randomised or quasi-experimental designs targeting individuals under 21 years, evaluating environmental interventions (regulatory, physical or economic) with outcomes related to underage alcohol consumption and access. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools.
Regulatory strategies were the most frequent (94%; 15/16), followed by physical strategies (37%; 6/16). The most reported outcome was a reduction in alcohol availability (62%; 10/16), followed by a general reduction in consumption (37%; 6/16). Although 69% (11/16) of the studies reported positive effects, heterogeneity in study designs and terminology limited comparability. It is crucial to note that community mobilisation, although not an environmental strategy per se, was described in 81% (13/16) of the studies.
The analysis indicates that the effectiveness and sustainability of environmental interventions are strongly associated with their integration with community mobilisation. This synergy, however, introduces methodological complexity, making it difficult to analyse components in isolation and to standardise evaluation.
The findings reaffirm the value of environmental interventions, particularly regulatory ones, in preventing alcohol use among adolescents. The most promising model is multicomponent, combining actions that modify the environment with robust processes of community participation, forming an adaptable and holistic framework to promote sustainable outcomes.
本项基于社区的环境预防策略的系统评价旨在了解其特征,检验其有效性,并确定预防青少年饮酒的挑战。
截至2024年12月,在MEDLINE/PubMed、Scopus和PsycINFO数据库中进行了全面检索。纳入的研究为随机或准实验设计,针对21岁以下个体,评估环境干预措施(监管、物理或经济方面)与未成年饮酒及获取酒精的相关结果。两名评审员独立筛选研究、提取数据,并使用RoB 2和ROBINS-I工具评估偏倚风险。
监管策略最为常见(94%;16项中有15项),其次是物理策略(37%;16项中有6项)。最常报告的结果是酒精可及性降低(62%;16项中有10项),其次是总体饮酒量减少(37%;16项中有6项)。尽管69%(16项中有11项)的研究报告了积极效果,但研究设计和术语的异质性限制了可比性。需要注意的是,尽管社区动员本身并非环境策略,但在81%(16项中有13项)的研究中有所描述。
分析表明,环境干预措施的有效性和可持续性与其与社区动员的整合密切相关。然而,这种协同作用带来了方法上的复杂性,使得难以单独分析各个组成部分并标准化评估。
研究结果重申了环境干预措施,特别是监管措施在预防青少年饮酒方面的价值。最有前景的模式是多成分模式,将改变环境的行动与强有力的社区参与过程相结合,形成一个适应性强的整体框架,以促进可持续的成果。