National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
BMC Public Health. 2012 Jan 10;12:25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-25.
Given limited research evidence for community-based alcohol interventions, this study examines the intervention preferences of rural communities and alcohol professionals, and factors that influence their choices.
Community preferences were identified by a survey of randomly selected individuals across 20 regional Australian communities. The preferences of alcohol professionals were identified by a survey of randomly selected members of the Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and Other Drugs. To identify preferred interventions and the extent of support for them, a budget allocation exercise was embedded in both surveys, asking respondents to allocate a given budget to different interventions. Tobit regression models were estimated to identify the characteristics that explain differences in intervention preferences.
Community respondents selected school programs most often (88.0%) and allocated it the largest proportion of funds, followed by promotion of safer drinking (71.3%), community programs (61.4%) and police enforcement of alcohol laws (60.4%). Professionals selected GP training most often (61.0%) and allocated it the largest proportion of funds, followed by school programs (36.6%), community programs (33.8%) and promotion of safer drinking (31.7%). Community views were susceptible to response bias. There were no significant predictors of professionals' preferences.
In the absence of sufficient research evidence for effective community-based alcohol interventions, rural communities and professionals both strongly support school programs, promotion of safer drinking and community programs. Rural communities also supported police enforcement of alcohol laws and professionals supported GP training. The impact of a combination of these strategies needs to be rigorously evaluated.
鉴于基于社区的酒精干预措施的研究证据有限,本研究调查了农村社区和酒精专业人员的干预偏好,以及影响他们选择的因素。
通过对澳大利亚 20 个地区社区的随机个体进行调查,确定了社区的偏好。通过对澳大利亚和新西兰酒精和其他药物专业人士协会的随机成员进行调查,确定了酒精专业人员的偏好。为了确定首选的干预措施及其支持程度,在两项调查中都嵌入了预算分配练习,要求受访者将给定的预算分配给不同的干预措施。采用 Tobit 回归模型来确定解释干预偏好差异的特征。
社区受访者最常选择学校项目(88.0%),并为此分配了最大比例的资金,其次是促进更安全的饮酒(71.3%)、社区项目(61.4%)和警察执行酒精法(60.4%)。专业人员最常选择 GP 培训(61.0%),并为此分配了最大比例的资金,其次是学校项目(36.6%)、社区项目(33.8%)和促进更安全的饮酒(31.7%)。社区的观点容易受到回应偏见的影响。没有专业人员偏好的显著预测因素。
在缺乏有效基于社区的酒精干预措施的充分研究证据的情况下,农村社区和专业人员都强烈支持学校项目、促进更安全的饮酒和社区项目。农村社区还支持警察执行酒精法,专业人员支持 GP 培训。需要严格评估这些策略的综合影响。