零售业态的防抢策略差异。
Differences in Robbery Prevention Strategies Across Retail Business Types.
机构信息
University of Iowa Injury Prevention Research Center (Dr Davis, Dr Casteel, Dr Peek-Asa); College of Public Health, Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Iowa (Dr Casteel, Dr Peek-Asa), Iowa City, Iowa; University of North Carolina Injury Prevention Research Center, Chapel Hill, North Carolina (Ms Nocera); Summers Associates, LLC Pasadena, California (Mr Summers).
出版信息
J Occup Environ Med. 2019 Feb;61(2):e61-e64. doi: 10.1097/JOM.0000000000001517.
OBJECTIVE
To compare implementation of robbery prevention strategies between gas station/convenience stores with liquor stores/grocery stores/pharmacies, restaurants/bars, and other retail businesses.
METHODS
One hundred forty-nine retail businesses were evaluated by police personnel across four police departments for adherence to robbery prevention strategies. Assessment of these strategies occurred between November 2012 and October 2014. Implementation of these strategies were compared across business types using logistic regression.
RESULTS
Liquor/grocery stores/pharmacies and restaurants/bars were less likely to have a high site assessment score for robbery prevention elements when compared with gas station/convenience stores.
CONCLUSIONS
Non-gas station/convenience stores require stronger consideration when developing robbery prevention programs and policies to assure appropriate implementation of robbery prevention strategies.
目的
比较有酒类商店/杂货店/药店、餐馆/酒吧和其他零售店的加油站/便利店与其他零售店在实施抢劫预防策略方面的情况。
方法
在四个警察局的警察人员对 149 家零售店进行了评估，以评估其遵守抢劫预防策略的情况。这些策略的评估是在 2012 年 11 月至 2014 年 10 月之间进行的。使用逻辑回归比较了不同类型企业对这些策略的实施情况。
结果
与加油站/便利店相比，酒类/杂货店/药店和餐馆/酒吧在抢劫预防要素的高现场评估得分方面的可能性较小。
结论
在制定抢劫预防计划和政策时，需要对非加油站/便利店给予更多的考虑，以确保适当实施抢劫预防策略。
Zotero 插件