Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

This research programme evaluated personalised feedback with either brief advice or electronic brief intervention, and neither reduced consumption compared with screening alone at 12 months in 14- to 17-year-olds.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index < metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Paolo Deluca 1,*, Simon Coulton 2, Mohammed Fasihul Alam 3, Sadie Boniface 1, Kim Donoghue 1, Eilish Gilvarry 4,5, Eileen Kaner 5, Ellen Lynch 5, Ian Maconochie 6, Paul McArdle 4, Ruth McGovern 5, Dorothy Newbury-Birch 7, Robert Patton 8, Tracy Pellatt-Higgins 2, Ceri Phillips 9, Thomas Phillips 1,10, Rhys Pockett 9, Ian T Russell 11, John Strang 1,12, Colin Drummond 1,12,

1 Addictions Department, National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
2 Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
3 Department of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Qatar University, , Qatar
4 Northumberland Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
5 Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
6 Paediatric Emergency Medicine, Imperial College London, London, UK
7 School of Health and Social Care, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, UK
8 School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
9 Swansea Centre for Health Economics, College of Human and Health Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
10 Institute for Clinical and Applied Health Research, University of Hull, Hull, UK
11 Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
12 South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
* Corresponding author Email:

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation: {{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al.' : ''}} . {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.


Responses to this report

No responses have been published.


If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions