Opin vísindi

 

Nýlega bætt við

Verk
Preliminary Impact of the Adoption of the Icelandic Prevention Model in Tarragona City, 2015-2019: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Study : A repeated cross-sectional study
(2023) Meyers, C.A.; Mann, M.J.; Thorisdottir, I.E.; Garcia, P.R.; Sigfusson, J.; Sigfusdottir, I.D.; Kristjansson, A.L.; Department of Psychology
Background: There is a great need for effective primary prevention intervention strategies to reduce and delay onset of adolescent substance use. The Icelandic Prevention Model (IPM) showed great success in Iceland over the past twenty plus years, however, evidence for the transferability of model is still somewhat limited. Using data collected in Tarragona during regional efforts to begin adoption of the IPM in Catalonia, this study tested the transferability and stability of the core risk and protective factor assumptions of the IPM overtime and examined trends of lifetime smoking, e-cigarette-use, alcohol-use, intoxication, and cannabis-use within the same time period. Methods: This study includes responses from 15- to 16-years-olds from two region-wide samples taken in 2015 and 2019 in Tarragona (N = 2,867). Survey questions assessed frequency of lifetime: smoking, e-cigarette-use, alcohol-use, intoxication, and cannabis-use, and the core model assumptions. Demographic data were also collected. Logistic regression models of main effects with and without time interaction were used to test assumptions and their stability across time. Chi-square tests and Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney U tests were used to compare prevalence of substance use and mean scores of primary prevention variables respectively. Results: Lifetime: smoking (−7%, p < 0.001) and cannabis-use (−4%, p < 0.001) decreased, and e-cigarette-use increased (+33%, p < 0.001) in Tarragona. Lifetime intoxication (−7%, p < 0.001) decreased in a single zone exclusively. Most core model assumptions held in their hypothesised direction across time. The strongest positive association was observed between time spent with parents during weekends and reduced odds of lifetime smoking (OR: 0.62, 95%CI: 0.57–0.67) and the strongest negative association was observed between being outside after midnight and increased odds of lifetime intoxication (OR: 1.41, 95%CI: 1.32–1.51). Mean scores of primary prevention variables also changed disproportionately in Tarragona. Conclusion: This study confirms that the core IPM assumptions are similar in Tarragona as in Iceland and other contexts previously examined. They also indicate that prevalence of lifetime smoking, intoxication, and cannabis-use decreased disproportionately in Tarragona between 2015 and 2019 during the first phase of regional adoption of the model. Thus, targeting model assumptions represents a viable primary prevention strategy for communities that hope to reduce smoking, alcohol-use, intoxication, and cannabis-use among adolescents.
Verk
Examining the implementation of the Icelandic Model for Primary Prevention of Substance Use in a Rural Canadian Community: A study protocol : A study protocol
(2020-08-14) Halsall, T.; Lachance, L.; Kristjansson, AL.; Department of Psychology
Background: The Icelandic Prevention Model (IPM) is a collaborative upstream model that was designed to influence risk and protective factors related to substance use within the community, school, peer and family contexts. By engaging whole communities, the IPM has been found to be effective in reducing youth substance use behaviours across Iceland. As an extension to the IPM's participatory approach, this research will examine how youth involvement can enhance outcomes. In addition, this research will evaluate whether the IPM approach is beneficial for mental health promotion and general youth wellbeing. Methods: The present research protocol applies the bioecological model within a participatory mixed-method case study design to examine the implementation of the IPM in a rural community in Canada. This study was designed to identify whether the Icelandic substance use prevention model is effective in reducing substance use and promoting mental health and development for Canadian youth. It will also explore how to engage youth within the approach and how this adaptation influences implementation and outcomes. Discussion: The findings from this study will contribute to our understanding of upstream prevention of youth substance use and will be used to support scaling of the IPM across Canada.
Verk
Implementación del Modelo Islandés para la Prevención del Uso del Sustancias en Adolescentes
(2020-02) Kristjansson, AL.; Mann, MJ.; Sigfusson, J.; Thorisdottir, IE.; Allegrante, JP.; Sigfusdottir, ID.; Department of Psychology
Esta es la segunda de una serie de dos partes de artículos sobre el Modelo Islandés de Prevención Primaria del Uso de Sustancias (MIP) en Health Promotion Practice. El MIP es una estrategia comunitaria colaborativa que ha demostrado notable efectividad en reducir el inicio del uso de sustancias entres jóvenes de Islandia en los últimos 20 años. Mientras el primer artículo se enfocó en el contexto de fondo, orientación teórica, evaluación y evidencia de su efectividad, y los cinco principios guías del modelo, este segundo artículo describe los 10 pasos centrales en la implementación práctica. Los pasos 1 a 3 se enfocan en cómo construir y mantener la capacidad comunitaria para la implementación del modelo. Los pasos 4 a 6 se enfocan en cómo implementar un sistema riguroso de recolección de datos, como procesarlos, la diseminación de los datos y la traducción de los hallazgos. Los pasos 7 a 9 están diseñados para enfocar la atención de la comunidad y para maximizar el compromiso comunitario en crear y mantener un medioambiente social en el cual la gente joven progresivamente se hace menos proclive a consumir sustancias, e incluye ejemplos ilustrativos de Islandia. Y el paso 10 se enfoca en la naturaleza iterativa, repetitiva y de largo plazo del MIP y describe un amplio y predecible arco de oportunidades y desafíos relacionados con la implementación. Este artículo concluye con una breve discusión sobre las potenciales variaciones en los factores comunitarios para la implementación.
Verk
Barriers to Using Clean Needles Encountered By Rural Appalachian People Who Inject Drugs: Implications for Needle Exchange : Implications for needle exchange
(2019-04-02) Davis, SM.; Kristjansson, AL.; Davidov, Danielle; Zullig, K.; Baus, A.; Fisher, M.; Department of Psychology
Background: Using a new needle for every injection can reduce the spread of infectious disease among people who inject drugs (PWID). No previous study has examined new needle use barriers among PWIDs residing in the rural Appalachian part of the United States, an area currently in the midst of a heroin epidemic. Objective: Therefore, our primary aim was to explore self-reported barriers to using a new needle by PWID attending a needle exchange program (NEP). Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of PWID attending two NEPs in rural West Virginia located in the heart of Central Appalachia. A convenience sample of PWID (n = 100) completed the Barriers to Using New Needles Questionnaire. Results: The median number of barriers reported was 5 (range 0-19). Fear of arrest by police (72% of PWID "agreed" or "strongly agreed") and difficulty with purchasing needles from a pharmacy (64% "agreed" or "strongly agreed") were the most frequently cited barriers. Conclusions/Importance: Congruent with previous findings from urban locations, in rural West Virginia, the ability of PWID to use a new needle obtained from a needle exchange for every injection may be compromised by fear of arrest. In addition, pharmacy sales of new needles to PWID may be blunted by an absence of explicit laws mandating nonprescription sales. Future studies should explore interventions that align the public health goals of NEPs with the occupational safety of law enforcement and health outreach goals of pharmacists.
Verk
A review of the criteria that influence choices concerning the location of onshore wind energy projects in Iceland
(University of Iceland, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2025-04-30) Cook, David; Pétursson, Jón Geir; Umhverfis- og auðlindadeild (HÍ); Department of Environment and Natural Resources (UI)
WIND ENERGY – BACKGROUND Over the course of the 20th Century, the global use of onshore and offshore wind energy has continued to expand, especially in response to environmental, availability and price concerns about electricity generation derived from fossil fuel combustion (Kiunke et al., 2022; Msigwa et al., 2022). Today, wind energy constitutes the fastest growing technology in the renewable power industry, with almost 1,870 TWh produced in 2021, up 17% on 2020 generation (IEA, 2022). Total installed capacity from onshore and offshore sources in 2020 was 837 MW, more than half of which is sourced from China (GWEC, 2022). Approximately 6.7% of global electricity production was from wind energy in 2021 (BP, 2022). In the light of various nations’ net zero greenhouse gas emissions commitments, the GWEC (2022) project rapid further expansion, anticipating an additional 557 GW of combined offshore and onshore capacity by the end of 2026. Despite the various uses of wind power, its growing significance as a share of global electricity production, and environmental advantages in comparison to fossil fuel powered alternatives, the negative consequences of wind turbine installations and wind farms have often been to the fore in the public and planning discourse about the merits of the technology (Brannstrom et al., 2022; Graham et al., 2009; Langer et al., 2018). Hastik et al. (2015) provided a comprehensive analysis of the environmental and ecosystem service impacts of several renewable energy technologies. In the case of impacts located close to the site of onshore wind farms, the most often cited issues are negative effects on birds and bats (Husby and Pearson, 2022; Lintott et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2015), altered landscape aesthetics (Vlami et al., 2016), shadow flickering and safety risks (Karanikas et al., 2021), and health impacts from noise (Nazir et al., 2020). Offsite issues, such as the construction of access roads and power line infrastructure, often constitute additional concerns (Hastik et al., 2015). Connected to these various issues, several studies have also focused on the themes of social acceptance and how best to cultivate a social license to operate (Colvin et al., 2019; Frate et al., 2019; Walker and Baxter, 2019). GIS MAPPING FOR LOCATING RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS The various environmental, social, and economic implications of renewable energy projects frequently demand advanced decision support platforms to determine the optimality of proposals. In recent years, an increasing number of studies have utilised Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping in tandem with MCDA to enrich the data pool available to decision-makers. The aim of GIS mapping is to store, retrieve, manipulate, analyse, and map geographical data (Church, 2002). The recent study by Cook and Pétursson (2023) appraised the increasingly significant role of GIS-based analysis, specifically connected to its use within MCDA. Although focused only on geothermal power, hydropower, and onshore wind energy, the study nevertheless revealed the breadth of focus of GIS-MCDA in the academic literature, particularly in relation to issues such as economic prospectivity, land-use trade-offs, visual impacts of erected infrastructure, and the social acceptability of proposals. A total of 41 articles were analysed, based on the most relevant publications in the period January 2017 to May 2023. These were split as follows: n = 13 for geothermal power, n = 9 for hydropower, and n = 19 for wind power. As per the detailed Appendix C in the Cook and Pétursson (2023) study, the criteria evaluated in the GIS-MCDA literature on onshore wind energy projects includes the following: • Environmental impacts (e.g., visual, noise, birds, bats, shadow flicker, soil texture, presence of geological formations, etc.). • Location specifics (e.g., predicted productive capacity; relief and topography; other land uses; and distance to electricity sub-stations, powerlines, telecommunications, roads, tourist sights, cities, towns, railways, etc.). • Land use and legal restrictions (e.g., protected areas, airports, military zones, forests, sand dunes, farms, vegetated areas, wetlands and rivers, urban locations, etc.). • Socio-demographics (e.g., population density) and social acceptability of proposals. ONSHORE WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN ICELAND Onshore wind energy is a relatively new technology in Iceland, currently comprising a few off-grid turbines and contributing a token 0.03% of national electricity generation (NEA, 2023). However, given the strong productive potential of onshore wind power (Archer and Jacobson, 2005; Nawri et al., 2014) there are plans for expansion (Sæþórsdóttir et al., 2021). A 120 MW wind farm at Búrfellslundur in South Iceland, where two 0.9 MW test turbines have operated for a decade, will be the first major wind power project in Iceland, commencing operations within the next few years. Another project of ca. 100 MW at Blöndulundur in North Iceland is also planned and classed in the utilisation category by Iceland’s Master Plan for Nature Protection and Energy Utilization (ramma.is, n.d.). In early 2025, 39 wind energy projects had been submitted for assessment in the Master Plan, a clear indication of the interest in wind energy development in the country. AIMS AND STRUCTURE This report has the following aims: 1) To consider how the various GIS-MCDA criteria for onshore wind energy projects, as identified by Cook and Pétursson (2023), could apply to the Icelandic context. 2) To evaluate the extent to which GIS-based analysis is already utilised in Iceland and what additional aspects could be considered, providing potentially useful information to aid Iceland’s Master Plan for Nature Protection and Energy Utilization, and its Steering Committee and four Expert Groups. Section 2 of this report provides a summary overview on how MCDA studies are typically structured and operate in a renewable energy project context. Sections 3 to 5 of this report consider the GIS-MCDA evaluative criteria identified in Cook and Pétursson (2023) with respect to onshore wind energy projects, outlining how these are likely to apply to the Icelandic case. Much of this content constitutes a synthesis of other work recently published in support of the Master Ploan’s evidence base. Section 6 then provides a discussion, first reflecting on the extent to which such GIS-MCDA based evaluations are already undertaken in Iceland and then considering the main practical and policy-making implications of this study. Section 7 provides a short conclusion regarding the main findings.

Flokkar í Opnum vísindum

Veldu flokk til að skoða.

Niðurstöður 1 - 9 af 9

Öll gögn í Opnum vísindum eru vernduð af ákvæðum höfundalaga og með öllum réttindum áskildum, nema annað sé tekið fram.