Suppr超能文献

在酒精饮料服务场所采取的预防伤害的干预措施。

Interventions in the alcohol server setting for preventing injuries.

作者信息

Ker K, Chinnock P

机构信息

London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Nutrition & Public Health Intervention Research Unit, Room 280, North Courtyard, Keppel Street, London, UK, WC1E 7HT.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Apr 19(2):CD005244. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005244.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Injuries are a significant public health burden and alcohol intoxication is recognised as a risk factor for injuries. There is increasing attention on supply-side interventions, which aim to modify the environment and context within which alcohol is supplied and consumed.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the effectiveness of interventions implemented in the server setting for reducing injuries.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group Specialised Register (September 2004), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE (January 1966 to September 2004), EMBASE (1980 to 2004, wk 36), other specialised databases and reference lists of articles. We also contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised controlled studies (NRS) of the effectiveness of interventions administered in the server setting which attempted to modify the conditions under which alcohol is served and consumed, to facilitate sensible alcohol consumption and reduce the occurrence of alcohol-related harm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened search results and assessed the full texts of potentially relevant studies for inclusion. Data were extracted and methodological quality was examined. Due to variability in the intervention types investigated, a pooled analysis was not appropriate.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall methodological quality was poor. Five studies used an injury outcome measure; only one of these studies was randomised. The studies were grouped into broad categories according to intervention type. One NRS investigated server training and estimated a reduction of 23% in single vehicle night-time crashes in the experimental area (controlled for crashes in the control area). Another NRS examined the impact of a drink driving service, and reported a reduction in injury road crashes of 15% in the experimental area, with no change in the control; no difference was found for fatal crashes. One NRS investigating the impact of a policy intervention, reported that pre-intervention the serious assault rate in the experimental area was 52% higher than the rate in the control area. After intervention, the serious assault rate in the experimental area was 37% lower than in the control. The only RCT targeting the server setting environment with an injury outcome compared toughened glassware (experimental) to annealed glassware (control) on number of bar staff injuries; a greater number of injuries were detected in the experimental group (relative risk 1.72, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.59). A NRS investigating the impact of a intervention aiming to reduce crime experienced by drinking premises; found a lower rate of all crime in the experimental premises (rate ratio 4.6, 95% CI 1.7 to 12, P = 0.01), no difference was found for injury (rate ratio 1.1. 95% CI 0.1 to 10, P = 0.093). The effectiveness of the interventions on patron alcohol consumption is inconclusive. One randomised trial found a statistically significant reduction in observed severe aggression exhibited by patrons. There is some indication of improved server behaviour but it is difficult to predict what effect this might have on injury risk.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no reliable evidence that interventions in the alcohol server setting are effective in reducing injury. Compliance with interventions appears to be a problem; hence mandated interventions may be more likely to show an effect. Randomised controlled trials, with adequate allocation concealment and blinding are required to improve the evidence base. Further well conducted non-randomised trials are also needed, when random allocation is not feasible.

摘要

背景

伤害是一项重大的公共卫生负担,酒精中毒被认为是伤害的一个风险因素。供应方干预措施越来越受到关注,其旨在改变酒精供应和消费的环境与背景。

目的

量化在服务场所实施的干预措施对减少伤害的有效性。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane伤害组专业注册库(2004年9月)、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(《Cochrane图书馆》2004年第3期)、MEDLINE(1966年1月至2004年9月)、EMBASE(1980年至2004年,第36周)、其他专业数据库以及文章的参考文献列表。我们还联系了该领域的专家。

选择标准

关于在服务场所实施的干预措施有效性的随机对照试验(RCT)和非随机对照研究(NRS),这些干预措施试图改变酒精供应和消费的条件,以促进合理饮酒并减少与酒精相关伤害的发生。

数据收集与分析

两位作者独立筛选检索结果,并评估潜在相关研究的全文以确定是否纳入。提取数据并检查方法学质量。由于所研究的干预类型存在差异,不适合进行汇总分析。

主要结果

20项研究符合纳入标准。总体方法学质量较差。5项研究使用了伤害结局指标;其中只有1项研究是随机的。这些研究根据干预类型分为几大类。一项非随机对照研究调查了服务员培训情况,并估计试验区单车夜间撞车事故减少了23%(以对照区撞车事故为对照)。另一项非随机对照研究考察了酒驾服务的影响,并报告试验区伤害性道路撞车事故减少了15%,对照区无变化;致命撞车事故无差异。一项调查政策干预影响的非随机对照研究报告称,干预前试验区严重攻击率比对照区高52%。干预后,试验区严重攻击率比对照区低37%。唯一一项以伤害结局为目标、针对服务场所环境的随机对照试验,比较了钢化玻璃器皿(试验组)和退火玻璃器皿(对照组)对酒吧工作人员受伤数量的影响;试验组检测到更多伤害(相对风险1.72,95%可信区间1.15至2.59)。一项调查旨在减少饮酒场所犯罪的干预措施影响的非随机对照研究发现,试验场所所有犯罪率较低(率比4.6,95%可信区间1.7至12,P = 0.01),伤害方面无差异(率比1.1,95%可信区间0.1至10,P = 0.093)。干预措施对顾客酒精消费的有效性尚无定论。一项随机试验发现顾客表现出的明显严重攻击行为有统计学显著减少。有迹象表明服务员行为有所改善,但难以预测这可能对伤害风险产生何种影响。

作者结论

没有可靠证据表明在酒精服务场所实施的干预措施能有效减少伤害。干预措施的依从性似乎是个问题;因此,强制性干预措施可能更有可能显示出效果。需要进行有充分分配隐藏和盲法的随机对照试验以改善证据基础。当随机分配不可行时,也需要进一步开展实施良好的非随机试验。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验