Young university students in Australia and other countries report high levels of hazardous alcohol consumption and related harms, placing themselves and others at risk of harm (Burns, 2015; Choudhry et al., 2014; Gil-del-Real, 2012; Hallett et al., 2013; Ham et al., 2005; Kypri et al., 2009; Rickwood, George, Parker, & Mikhailovich, 2011; Ståhlbrandt et al., 2010). During this significant developmental period (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2009) many students experience a range of new experiences including moving away from the family home, increased social freedom and greater accessibility of alcohol (Hallett et al., 2014; Kypri, Cronin, & Wright, 2005). University environments, especially social functions reinforcing excessive alcohol consumption as a norm, have been suggested to contribute to alcohol related harms among young students (Hallett et al., 2014; Kypri et al., 2005). The Youth Alcohol Project (YAP) was a multi-strategy project implemented at a large Australian university campus (Burns et al., 2016). Universities represent potential settings or subsystems for health promotion (Burns et al., 2015; VanKim, Laska, Ehlinger, Lust, & Story, 2010).

YAP adopted a socio-ecological approach to understand interactions between individuals, interpersonal, organizational, community and societal factors (Golden & Earp, 2012; McLeroy, Bibeau, Steckler, & Glanz, 1988) to understand complex health interactions to inform planning and development of strategies.

YAP aimed to develop capacity among the university community with the aim of reducing hazardous alcohol consumption for young university students aged 18–24 years at a large university campus.

The YAP employed a capacity building approach with key strategies in the areas of organizational and policy actions; partnerships and behaviour change (Figure 1). The focus aimed to enhance sustainability at an organizational level and to build capacity among the primary target group (Burns et al., 2016). Project strategies were employed to influence individual, interpersonal, organizational community and societal components of the SEM.

The key individual strategy, embedded through organizational structure, was THRIVE (Tertiary Health Research Intervention via Email), a web-based brief motivational alcohol intervention that provides personalized and immediate feedback to participants on alcohol consumption and strategies to reduce harms. The intervention was developed via a randomized control trial (Kypri et al., 2009) and was refined and embedded in the student web portal as part of this project. The referral system of THRIVE supports student involvement in existing university interventions in addition to counselling services provided through the campus health service. Student activities (interpersonal) provided the opportunity to promote this strategy. Interpersonal actions focus on social interactions which may include peers, family, work colleagues (Golden & Earp, 2012). To build capacity the key interpersonal and organizational strategies in the YAP included Responsible Service of Alcohol (RSA) and Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) training (Burns et al., 2017). RSA courses enhanced compliance with National policy for venues and sporting clubs on campus serving alcohol (organizational, community and societal) (Burns et al., 2016), in addition to providing students with training opportunities to enhance employability (interpersonal).

The association between excessive alcohol use and mental health problems is complex (Said, Kypri, & Bowman, 2013) and young university students report higher levels of mental health problems than their non-university peers (Stallman, 2010). MHFA aims to enhance skills to enable participants to identify and support people who may be developing a mental health problem or experiencing a mental health crisis (Burns et al., 2017). YAP provided support for staff to receive training to implement the courses (interpersonal and organizational) and provided free courses for students (individual and interpersonal). At an organizational level the development and evaluation of specific strategies for the YAP were embedded into an undergraduate health promotion unit. This capacity building strategy provided students’ opportunities to develop, implement and evaluate actions, supporting sustainability and stretching funding (Burns et al., 2016; Lobo, 2014). Although organizational, this action also could be considered interpersonal as it focused developing skills among people who interact with the target group (Golden & Earp, 2012).

A key focus of YAP was the development of partnerships (organizational and community). Partnerships were developed with university student support services, health services, the Guild, security and housing, and venues serving alcohol such as the tavern and sports clubs. Strategies targeting the community focused on developing skills among the broader university community and enhancing community environment and services. The establishment of a Local Drug Action Group (http://localdrugaction.com.au/) provided opportunities for advocacy and community education. One strategy of the LDAG was to develop a wallet card which was then distributed via a project implemented by the student group (interpersonal) to the target group (individual). Due to resources available to implement the YAP the primary focus of the project was at the university level. However strategies of the YAP impacted at a broader community level, for example, through the LDAG. In addition, community focused strategies have also included advocacy at a local level, for example, advocating against the establishment of a large liquor store at a shopping centre bordering the campus. Policy change (societal) is possibly the most effective health promotion strategy (Burns & Portsmouth, 2010). The project is working with partners and key university stakeholders to progress the implementation of a responsible alcohol policy on campus.

An ecological approach recognizes the interrelationship between individuals, determinants of health and the broader environment (Fleming, 2009; Keleher & Joss, 2008). Bronfenbrenner’s original model recognizes the socio-ecological perspective to include systems and subsystems in which people live (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). In 1988 McLeroy and colleagues provided an adaptation to specific to health promotion (McLeroy et al., 1988) which has since been adapted for programs focusing on a range of issues (Green, Richard, & Potvin, 1996; IOM (Institute of Medicine), 2013; Kok et al., 2008; Golden & Earp, 2012). More recent use of systems based approaches are also aligned to the traditional ecological model focus which includes a recognition of systems and subsystems (Institute of Medicine, 2013). An ecological focus also supports definitions of health promotion which include a combination of strategies (Howat et al., 2003). Through the capacity building project YAP focused on reducing experienced and witnessed harms associated with personal alcohol consumption and the consumption of others (Burns et al., 2016). YAP applied a socio-ecological approach to understand the complexity of alcohol related harms among young people and to inform strategies. The interaction between the levels of individual, interpersonal, organizational, community and societal have been described above. Evaluation of the project has been described elsewhere (Burns et al., 2016).

• Collaboration for Evidence, Research and Impact in Public Health: 

• Responsible Service of Alcohol

• Mental Health First Aid

• World Health Organization

• CDC  

• Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

• Burns, S. (2015). Sexual health, alcohol and the university environment: Is there a need for sexual health promotion intervention? Sexual Health, 12(3), 269–271. doi:10.1071/SH14215

• Burns, S., Crawford, G., Hallett, J., Hunt, K., Chih, H. J., & Tilley, P. J. M. (2017). What’s wrong with John? A randomised control trial of Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) training with nursing students. Review of. BMC Psychiatry, 17. doi:10.1186/s12888-017-1278-2.

• Burns, S., Crawford, G., Hallett, J., Jancey, J., Portsmouth, L., Hunt, K., & Longo, J. (2015). Consequences of low risk and hazardous alcohol consumption among university students in Australia and implications for health promotion interventions. Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, 5, 1–13. doi:10.4236/ojpm.2015.51001.

• Burns, S., Jancey, J., Crawford, G. Hallett, G. Portsmouth, L., & Longo, J. (2016). A cross sectional evaluation of an alcohol intervention targeting university students. BMC Public Health, 16, 610. doi:10.1186/s12889-016-3314-4.

• Burns, S. K., & Portsmouth, L. (2010). Health Promotion. In A. Felicity (Ed.), Health psychology and behaviour in Australia (pp. 457–486). Sydney, Australia: McGraw Hill.

• Choudhry, V., Agardh, A., Stafström, M., & Östergren, P. (2014). Patterns of alcohol consumption and risky sexual behavior: A cross-sectional study among Ugandan university students. BMC Public Health, 14, 128. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-128.

• Fleming, M. L. (2009). History and development of public health. In M. L. Fleming & E. Parker (Eds.), Introduction to public health. Chatswood, NSW: Churchill Livingstone.

• Gil-del-Real, F. (2012). An alcohol intervention model with college students: Effectiveness of the BASICS Program. Psy.D., Antioch University New England.

• Green, L. W., Richard, L., & Potvin, L. (1996). Ecological foundations of health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10(4), 270–281.

• Golden, S. D., & Earp, J. A. (2012). Social ecological approaches to individuals and their contexts: Twenty years of health education & behavior health promotion interventions. Health Education & Behavior, 39(3), 364–372. doi:10.1177/1090198111418634.

• Hallett, J., Howat, P., McManus, A., Meng, R., Maycock, B., & Kypri, K. (2013). Academic and personal problems among Australian university students who drink at hazardous levels: Web-based survey. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 24(3), 170–177. doi:10.1071/HE13094.

• Hallett, J., McManus, A., Maycock, B. R., Smith, J., & Howat, P. M. (2014). Excessive drinking—An inescapable part of university life? A focus group study of Australian undergraduates. Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, 4(7), 616–629. doi:10.4236/ojpm.2014.47071.

• Ham, L. S., Stewart, S. H., Norton, P. J., & Hope, D. A. (2005). Psychometric assessment of the comprehensive effects of alcohol questionnaire: Comparing a brief version to the original full scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27(3), 141–158. doi:10.1007/s10862-005-0631-9.

• Howat, P., Maycock, B., Cross, D., Collins, J., Jackson, L., Burns, S., & James, R. (2003). Towards a more unified definition of health promotion. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 14(2), 82–85.

• IOM (Institute of Medicine). (2013). Evaluating obesity prevention efforts: A plan for measuring progress. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

• Keleher, H., & Joss, N. (2008). Building competencies and workforce capacity for health promotion. In H. Keleher, C. MacDougall, & B. Murphy (Eds.), Understanding health promotion. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

• Kok, G., Gottlieb, N. H., Commers, M., & Smerecnik, C. (2008). The ecological approach in health promotion programs: A decade later. American Journal of Health Promotion, 22(6), 437–442.

• Kypri, K., Cronin, M., & Wright, C. S. (2005). Do university students drink more hazardously than their non-student peers? Addiction, 100(5), 713–717. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.01116.x.

• Kypri, K., Hallett, J., Howat, P., McManus, A., Maycock, B., Bowe, S., & Horton, N. J. (2009). Randomized controlled trial of proactive web-based alcohol screening and brief intervention for university students. Archives of Internal Medicine, 169(16), 1508–1514.

• Lobo, R., Petrich, M., & Burns, S. K. (2014). Supporting health promotion practitioners to undertake evaluation for program development. BMC Public Health, 14, 1315.

• McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education and Behavior, 15(4), 351–377.

• National Health and Medical Research Council. (2009). Australian Guidelines: To reduce health risks from drinking alcohol. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

• Rickwood, D., George, A. M., Parker, R., & Mikhailovich, K. (2011). Harmful alcohol use on campus: Impact on young people at University. Youth Studies Australia, 30(1), 34–40.

• Said, D., Kypri, K., & Bowman, J. (2013). Risk factors for mental disorder among university students in Australia: Findings from a web-based cross-sectional survey. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 48(6), 935–944. doi:10.1007/s00127-012-0574-x.

• Ståhlbrandt, H., Leifman, A., Johnsson, K. O., & Berglund, M. (2010). Alcohol trajectories over three years in a swedish residence hall student population. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 7(4), 1432–1447.

• Stallman, H. M. (2010). Psychological distress in university students: A comparison with general population data. Australian Psychologist, 45(4), 249–257.

• VanKim, N. A., Laska, M. N., Ehlinger, E., Lust, K., & Story, M. (2010). Understanding young adult physical activity, alcohol and tobacco use in community colleges and 4-year post-secondary institutions: A cross-sectional analysis of epidemiological surveillance data. Review of. BMC Public Health, 10, 208. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-208.