Table 3

Teacher and health professional feedback on the programme

Validity and credibilityEffectiveness at minimising harm
  • “Because the prevention style was relaxed and information quite conversational, it fitted well in a youth centre setting”

  • “The interactive content and trick questions got them thinking”

  • “Neuroscience statistics and facts reinforced the content and made it more believable”

  • “The animal studies were very effective, good insight”

  • “The real-life stories of young people were impactful on students”

  • “People engaged well with the content around developing a risk profile and considering all harms, it’s a useful message that no drug is ever ‘safe’ and it all depends on how we measure ‘danger’”

  • “Interesting content for young people they would never know”

  • “Doesn’t preach what should/shouldn’t do, puts the individual in the driver seat over decisions making”

  • “It gets students thinking but it is up to them whether they change behaviour or not”

  • “The non-judgemental approach is effective in engaging students”

  • “Establishes informed decision making”

  • “Really appreciate that the illicit project is transparent and clear in articulating the harm minimisation approach”

Teacher feedback for future implementation
  • “The PDHPE teachers could take this info and implement it in a way that fits in sensitively with the ethos of the school”

  • “Include more neuroscience and information about the brain and alcohol’s effect on the brain”

  • “More tips on harm minimisation and what they can do with themselves and friends when using”

  • “Ideally, workshops would be delivered relatively close to each other so you can recap on previous sessions”

  • PDHPE, Personal Development, Health and Physical Education.