The Effectiveness of Community Action in Reducing Risky Alcohol Consumption and Harm: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial


Background:
The World Health Organization, governments, and communities agree that community action is likely to reduce risky alcohol consumption and harm. Despite this agreement, there is little rigorous evidence that community action is effective: of the six randomised trials of community action published to date, all were US-based and focused on young people (rather than the whole community), and their outcomes were limited to self-report or alcohol purchase attempts. The objective of this study was to conduct the first non-US randomised controlled trial (RCT) of community action to quantify the effectiveness of this approach in reducing risky alcohol consumption and harms measured using both self-report and routinely collected data.

Methods and Findings:
We conducted a cluster RCT comprising 20 communities in Australia that had populations of 5,000–20,000, were at least 100 km from an urban centre (population ≥ 100,000), and were not involved in another community alcohol project. Communities were pair-matched, and one member of each pair was randomly allocated to the experimental group. Thirteen interventions were implemented in the experimental communities from 2005 to 2009: community engagement; general practitioner training in alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI); feedback to key stakeholders; media campaign; workplace policies/practices training; school-based intervention; general practitioner feedback on their prescribing of alcohol medications; community pharmacy-based SBI; web-based SBI; Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services support for SBI; Good Sports program for sports clubs; identifying and targeting high-risk weekends; and hospital emergency department–based SBI. Primary outcomes based on routinely collected data were alcohol-related crime, traffic crashes, and hospital inpatient admissions. Routinely collected data for the entire study period (2001–2009) were obtained in 2010. Secondary outcomes based on pre- and post-intervention surveys (n = 2,977 and 2,255, respectively) were the following: long-term risky drinking, short-term high-risk drinking, short-term risky drinking, weekly consumption, hazardous/harmful alcohol use, and experience of alcohol harm. At the 5% level of statistical significance, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the interventions were effective in the experimental, relative to control, communities for alcohol-related crime, traffic crashes, and hospital inpatient admissions, and for rates of risky alcohol consumption and hazardous/harmful alcohol use. Although respondents in the experimental communities reported statistically significantly lower average weekly consumption (1.90 fewer standard drinks per week, 95% CI = −3.37 to −0.43, p = 0.01) and less alcohol-related verbal abuse (odds ratio = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.96, p = 0.04) post-intervention, the low survey response rates (40% and 24% for the pre- and post-intervention surveys, respectively) require conservative interpretation. The main limitations of this study are as follows: (1) that the study may have been under-powered to detect differences in routinely collected data outcomes as statistically significant, and (2) the low survey response rates.

Conclusions:
This RCT provides little evidence that community action significantly reduces risky alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms, other than potential reductions in self-reported average weekly consumption and experience of alcohol-related verbal abuse. Complementary legislative action may be required to more effectively reduce alcohol harms.

Trial registration:
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12607000123448

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary


Vyšlo v časopise: The Effectiveness of Community Action in Reducing Risky Alcohol Consumption and Harm: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial. PLoS Med 11(3): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001617
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001617

Souhrn

Background:
The World Health Organization, governments, and communities agree that community action is likely to reduce risky alcohol consumption and harm. Despite this agreement, there is little rigorous evidence that community action is effective: of the six randomised trials of community action published to date, all were US-based and focused on young people (rather than the whole community), and their outcomes were limited to self-report or alcohol purchase attempts. The objective of this study was to conduct the first non-US randomised controlled trial (RCT) of community action to quantify the effectiveness of this approach in reducing risky alcohol consumption and harms measured using both self-report and routinely collected data.

Methods and Findings:
We conducted a cluster RCT comprising 20 communities in Australia that had populations of 5,000–20,000, were at least 100 km from an urban centre (population ≥ 100,000), and were not involved in another community alcohol project. Communities were pair-matched, and one member of each pair was randomly allocated to the experimental group. Thirteen interventions were implemented in the experimental communities from 2005 to 2009: community engagement; general practitioner training in alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI); feedback to key stakeholders; media campaign; workplace policies/practices training; school-based intervention; general practitioner feedback on their prescribing of alcohol medications; community pharmacy-based SBI; web-based SBI; Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services support for SBI; Good Sports program for sports clubs; identifying and targeting high-risk weekends; and hospital emergency department–based SBI. Primary outcomes based on routinely collected data were alcohol-related crime, traffic crashes, and hospital inpatient admissions. Routinely collected data for the entire study period (2001–2009) were obtained in 2010. Secondary outcomes based on pre- and post-intervention surveys (n = 2,977 and 2,255, respectively) were the following: long-term risky drinking, short-term high-risk drinking, short-term risky drinking, weekly consumption, hazardous/harmful alcohol use, and experience of alcohol harm. At the 5% level of statistical significance, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the interventions were effective in the experimental, relative to control, communities for alcohol-related crime, traffic crashes, and hospital inpatient admissions, and for rates of risky alcohol consumption and hazardous/harmful alcohol use. Although respondents in the experimental communities reported statistically significantly lower average weekly consumption (1.90 fewer standard drinks per week, 95% CI = −3.37 to −0.43, p = 0.01) and less alcohol-related verbal abuse (odds ratio = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.96, p = 0.04) post-intervention, the low survey response rates (40% and 24% for the pre- and post-intervention surveys, respectively) require conservative interpretation. The main limitations of this study are as follows: (1) that the study may have been under-powered to detect differences in routinely collected data outcomes as statistically significant, and (2) the low survey response rates.

Conclusions:
This RCT provides little evidence that community action significantly reduces risky alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms, other than potential reductions in self-reported average weekly consumption and experience of alcohol-related verbal abuse. Complementary legislative action may be required to more effectively reduce alcohol harms.

Trial registration:
Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12607000123448

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary


Zdroje

1. LimS, VosT, FlaxmanA, DanaeiG, ShibuyaK, et al. (2012) A comparative risk assessment of the burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380: 2224–2260.

2. World Health Organization (2010) Global strategy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. Geneva: World Health Organization.

3. CzechS, ShakeshaftA, BreenC, Sanson-FisherR (2010) Whole-of-community approaches to reducing alcohol-related harm: what do communities think? J Public Health 18: 543–551.

4. PerryC, WilliamsC, Veblen-MortensonS, ToomeyT, KomroK, et al. (1996) Project Northland: outcomes of a community wide alcohol use prevention program during early adolescence. Am J Public Health 86: 956–965.

5. KomroK, PerryC, Veblen-MortensonS, FarbakhshK, ToomeyT, et al. (2008) Outcomes from a randomized controlled trial of a multi-component alcohol use preventive intervention for urban youth: Project Northland Chicago. Addiction 103: 606–618.

6. SchinkeS, TepavacL, ColeKC (2000) Preventing substance use among Native American youth: three-year results. Addict Behav 25: 387–397.

7. WagenaarA, MurrayD, GehanJ, WolfsonM, ForsterJ, et al. (2000) Communities mobilizing for change on alcohol: outcomes from a randomised community trial. J Stud Alcohol 61: 85–94.

8. WolfsonM, ChampionH, McCoyT, RhodesS, IpE, et al. (2012) Impact of a randomized campus/community trial to prevent high-risk drinking among college students. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 36: 1767–1778.

9. SaltzR, PaschallM, McGaffiganR, NygaardP (2010) Alcohol risk management in college settings: the Safer California Universities Randomized Trial. Am J Prev Med 39: 491–499.

10. Shakeshaft A, Doran C, Petrie D, Breen C, Havard A, et al.. (2012) Alcohol Action in Rural Communities (AARC) project: detailed description of the interventions and their costs. Monograph No. 64. Sydney: National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre.

11. Shakeshaft A, Doran C, Petrie D, Breen C, Havard A, et al.. (2012) The Alcohol Action in Rural Communities (AARC) Project. Deakin (Australia): Foundation for Alcohol Research and Education. Available: http://www.fare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/FARE-AARC-Report-LR.pdf. Accessed 18 September 2013.

12. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013) Data & analysis [2001 census data] [database]. Available: http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/data?opendocument&navpos=200. Accessed 12 February 2014.

13. JuddF, JacksonH, KomitiA, MurrayG, HodginsG, et al. (2002) High prevalence disorders in urban and rural communities. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 36: 104–113.

14. NavarroH, ShakeshaftA, DoranC, PetrieD (2012) The cost-effectiveness of tailored, postal feedback on general practitioners' prescribing of pharmacotherapies for alcohol dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend 124: 207–215.

15. PetrieD, DoranC, ShakeshaftA, Sanson-FisherR (2008) The relationship between alcohol consumption and self-reported health status using the EQ5D: evidence from rural Australia. Soc Sci Med 67: 1717–1726.

16. PetrieD, DoranC, ShakeshaftA (2011) Willingness to pay to reduce alcohol-related harm in Australian rural communities. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 11: 351–363.

17. PetrieD, DoranC, ShakeshaftA, Sanson-FisherR (2010) The relationship between risky alcohol consumption, crime and traffic accidents in rural Australia. Addict Behav 35: 359–362.

18. BreenCL, ShakeshaftAP, DoranCM, Sanson-FisherRW, MattickRP (2010) Cost-effectiveness of follow-up contact for a postal survey: a randomised controlled trial. Aust N Z J Public Health 34: 508–512.

19. BreenC, ShakeshaftA, SladeT, LoveS, D'EsteC, et al. (2011) Do community characteristics predict alcohol-related crime? Alcohol Alcohol 46: 464–470.

20. NavarroH, ShakeshaftA, DoranC, Sanson-FisherR (2011) The cost-effectiveness of GP screening and brief intervention. Addict Behav 36: 1191–1198.

21. ShakeshaftA, PetrieD, DoranC, BreenC, Sanson-FisherR (2012) An empirical approach to selecting community-based alcohol interventions: combining research evidence, community views and professional opinion. BMC Public Health 12: 25.

22. HavardA, ShakeshaftA, ConigraveK (2012) The prevalence and characteristics of patients with risky alcohol consumption presenting to emergency departments in rural Australia. Emerg Med Australas 24: 266–276.

23. HolderH, GruenewaldP, PonickieW, TrenoA, GrubeJ, et al. (2000) Effect of community-based interventions on high risk drinking and alcohol-related injuries. JAMA 284: 2341–2347.

24. CalabriaB, DoranC, VosT, ShakeshaftA, HallW (2010) Epidemiology of alcohol related burden of disease among Indigenous Australians. Aust N Z J Public Health 34: S47–S51.

25. CzechS, ShakeshaftA, Sanson-FisherR, BreenC (2011) The development and application of a proxy measure of alcohol-related traffic crashes for rural communities. Accid Anal Prev 43: 2160–2165.

26. LivingstonM, RoomR (2009) Variations by age and sex in alcohol-related problematic behaviour per drinking volume and heavier drinking occasion. Drug Alcohol Depend 101: 169–175.

27. SelinK (2003) Test-retest reliability of the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test in a general population sample. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 27: 1428–1435.

28. CliffordA, ShakeshaftA, DeansC (2013) Training and tailored outreach support to improve alcohol screening and brief intervention in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services. Drug Alcohol Rev 32: 72–79.

29. Navarro H, Shakeshaft A, Doran C, Petrie D (2014) A multi-strategy community approach to reduce alcohol-related violent crime incidents: a cost-benefit analysis. Int J Env Res Public Health. In press.

30. HavardA, ShakeshaftA, ConigraveK, DoranC (2012) Randomised controlled trial of mailed personalised feedback for problem drinkers in the emergency department: the short-term impact. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 36: 523–531.

31. Australian Department of Health and Ageing (2001) Measuring remoteness: Accessibility/Remoteness Index for Australia (ARIA). Available: http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/health-historicpubs-hfsocc-ocpanew14a.htm. Accessed 12 February 2014.

32. Australian Bureau of Statistics (2004) Census of population and housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Australia. 2039.0.55.001. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

33. New South Wales Office of Liquor, Gaming and Racing (2004) Index of New South Wales licensed premises and registered clubs 2004. Sydney: New South Wales Government.

34. ShakeshaftA, BowmanJ, Sanson-FisherR (2002) Community-based drug and alcohol counselling: who attends and why? Drug Alcohol Rev 21: 153–162.

35. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2005) 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey: detailed findings. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

36. Women's Health Australia (2014) Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health: about the study. Available: http://www.alswh.org.au/about/about-the-study. Accessed 12 February 2014.

37. BreenC, ShakeshaftA, SladeT, D'EsteC, MattickRP (2011) Assessing reliability of measures using routinely collected data. Alcohol Alcohol 46: 501–502.

38. Begg S, Vos T, Barker B, Stevenson C, Stanley L, et al.. (2007) The burden of disease and injury in Australia, 2003. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

39. World Health Organization (2000) International guide for monitoring alcohol consumption and related harm. Geneva: World Health Organization.

40. Ridolfo B, Stevenson C (2001) The quantification of drug-caused mortality and morbidity in Australia, 1998. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

41. National Health and Medical Research Council (2001) Australian alcohol guidelines: health risks and benefits. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

42. SaundersJ, AaslandO, BaborT, De La FuenteJ, GrantM (1993) Development of the Alcohol Use Disorders Test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on the early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption II. Addiction 88: 791–804.

43. FawcettJ, ShakeshaftA, HarrisM, WodakA, MattickR, et al. (2004) Using AUDIT to classify patients into Australian Alcohol Guideline categories. Med J Aust 180: 598.

44. DonnerA, TaljaardM, KlarN (2006) The merits of breaking the matches: a cautionary tale. Stat Med 26: 2036–2051.

45. ManclL, DeRouenTA (2001) A covariance estimator for GEE with improved small-sample properties. Biometrics 57: 126–134.

46. Rose G (2004) The strategy of preventive medicine. Oxford: Oxford Medical Publications.

47. CzechS, ShakeshaftA, ByrnesJ, DoranC (2010) Comparing the cost of alcohol-related traffic crashes in rural and urban environments. Accid Anal Prev 42: 1195–1198.

48. CobaicL, VosT, DoranC, WallaceA (2009) Cost-effectiveness of interventions to prevent alcohol-related disease and injury in Australia. Addiction 104: 1646–1655.

49. LudbrookA, PetrieD, McKenzieL, FarrarS (2012) Tackling alcohol misuse: purchasing patterns affected by minimum pricing for alcohol. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 10: 51–63 doi:10.2165/11594840-000000000-00000

50. HallW, WallaceA, CobaicL, DoranC, VosT (2010) How can we reduce alcohol-related road crash deaths among young Australians? Med J Aust 192: 464–466.

Štítky
Interné lekárstvo

Článok vyšiel v časopise

PLOS Medicine


2014 Číslo 3
Najčítanejšie tento týždeň
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
Kurzy

Zvýšte si kvalifikáciu online z pohodlia domova

Eozinofilní granulomatóza s polyangiitidou
nový kurz

Betablokátory a Ca antagonisté z jiného úhlu
Autori: prof. MUDr. Michal Vrablík, Ph.D., MUDr. Petr Janský

Autori: doc. MUDr. Petr Čáp, Ph.D.

Farmakoterapie akutní a chronické bolesti

Získaná hemofilie - Povědomí o nemoci a její diagnostika

Všetky kurzy
Prihlásenie
Zabudnuté heslo

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa

Zabudnuté heslo

Zadajte e-mailovú adresu, s ktorou ste vytvárali účet. Budú Vám na ňu zasielané informácie k nastaveniu nového hesla.

Prihlásenie

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa