Suppr超能文献

一项“酒精健康卫士”干预措施,以减少当地社区的酒精危害:一项自然实验的混合方法评估。

An 'alcohol health champions' intervention to reduce alcohol harm in local communities: a mixed-methods evaluation of a natural experiment.

机构信息

School of Health and Society, University of Salford, Greater Manchester, UK.

Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.

出版信息

Public Health Res (Southampt). 2024 Sep;12(9):1-135. doi: 10.3310/HTMN2101.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Globally alcohol consumption is a leading risk factor for premature death and disability and is associated with crime, social and economic consequences. Local communities may be able to play a role in addressing alcohol-related issues in their area.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-benefit of an asset-based community development approach to reducing alcohol-related harm and understand the context and factors that enable or hinder its implementation.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods evaluation. Area-level quasi-experimental trial analysed using four different evaluation methods (a stepped-wedge design where each area was a control until it entered the intervention, comparison to matched local/national controls and comparison to synthetic controls), alongside process and economic evaluations.

SETTING

Ten local authorities in Greater Manchester, England.

PARTICIPANTS

The outcomes evaluation was analysed at an area level. Ninety-three lay persons representing nineareas completed questionnaires, with 12 follow-up interviews in five areas; 20 stakeholders representing ten areas were interviewed at baseline, with 17 follow-up interviews in eight areas and 26 members of the public from two areas attended focus groups.

INTERVENTIONS

Professionals in a co-ordinator role recruited and supported lay volunteers who were trained to become alcohol health champions. The champion's role was to provide informal, brief alcohol advice to the local population and take action to strengthen restrictions on alcohol availability.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Numbers of alcohol-related hospital admissions, accident and emergency attendances, ambulance call-outs, street-level crime and antisocial behaviour in the intervention areas (area size: 1600-5500 residents). Set-up and running costs were collected alongside process evaluation data exploring barriers and facilitators.

DATA SOURCES

Routinely collected quantitative data on outcome measures aggregated at the intervention area and matched control and synthetic control areas. Data from policy documents, licensing registers, meeting notes, invoices, time/cost diaries, training registers, questionnaires, interviews, reflective diaries and focus groups.

RESULTS

The intervention rolled out in nine out of ten areas, seven of which ran for a full 12 months. Areas with better-established infrastructure at baseline were able to train more champions. In total, 123 alcohol health champions were trained (95 lay volunteers and 28 professionals): lay volunteers self-reported positive impact. Champions engaged in brief advice conversations more readily than taking action on alcohol availability. There were no consistent differences in the health and crime area-level indicators between intervention areas and controls, as confirmed by using three different analysis methods for evaluating natural experiments. The intervention was not found to be cost-beneficial.

LIMITATIONS

Although the sequential roll-out order of the intervention was randomised, the selection of the intervention areas was not. Self-reported impact may have been subject to social desirability bias due to the project's high profile.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no measurable impact on health and crime outcomes. Possible explanations include too few volunteers trained, volunteers being unwilling to get involved in licensing decisions, or that the intervention has no direct impact on the selected outcomes.

FUTURE WORK

Future similar interventions should use a coproduced community outcomes framework. Other natural experiment evaluations should use methodological triangulation to strengthen inferences about effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN81942890.

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme (NIHR award ref: 15/129/03) and is published in full in ; Vol. 12, No. 9. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

摘要

背景

在全球范围内,饮酒是导致早逝和残疾的主要风险因素之一,与犯罪、社会和经济后果有关。当地社区也许能够在解决其所在地区与酒精相关的问题方面发挥作用。

目的

评估基于资产的社区发展方法在减少与酒精相关的伤害方面的有效性和成本效益,并了解促进或阻碍其实施的背景和因素。

设计

混合方法评估。使用四种不同的评估方法(每个地区在进入干预前都是对照区的逐步楔形设计、与当地/国家对照区进行比较以及与合成对照区进行比较),以及过程和经济评估,对区域层面的准实验性试验进行分析。

设置

英格兰大曼彻斯特的 10 个地方当局。

参与者

结局评估在区域层面进行分析。93 名代表九个地区的非专业人士完成了问卷调查,其中五个地区进行了 12 次随访访谈;20 名代表十个地区的利益相关者在基线时接受了访谈,其中八个地区进行了 17 次随访访谈,两个地区的 26 名公众参加了焦点小组。

干预措施

协调员专业人员招募并支持接受过培训的非专业人士,使其成为酒精健康卫士。冠军的角色是向当地居民提供非正式的、简短的酒精建议,并采取行动加强对酒精供应的限制。

主要结果测量指标

干预地区(面积 1600-5500 居民)的酒精相关住院人数、急诊就诊人数、救护车出动次数、街头犯罪和反社会行为。同时收集了设立和运行成本,以及探索障碍和促进因素的过程评估数据。

数据来源

汇总干预区和匹配对照区及合成对照组的定量结局测量数据。来自政策文件、许可登记、会议记录、发票、时间/成本日记、培训登记册、问卷、访谈、反思日记和焦点小组的数据。

结果

该干预措施在十个地区中的九个地区展开,其中七个地区全面开展了 12 个月。基线基础设施较好的地区能够培训更多的健康卫士。共有 123 名酒精健康卫士接受了培训(95 名非专业志愿者和 28 名专业人员):非专业志愿者自我报告了积极的影响。健康卫士更愿意进行简短的咨询对话,而不是采取行动限制酒精供应。在使用三种不同的自然实验评估方法进行确认后,干预区和对照组在健康和犯罪区域层面指标上没有一致的差异。该干预措施没有被发现具有成本效益。

局限性

尽管干预措施的顺序推出顺序是随机的,但干预区的选择并非如此。自我报告的影响可能因项目的高知名度而受到社会期望偏差的影响。

结论

在健康和犯罪结果方面没有可衡量的影响。可能的解释包括培训的志愿者人数不足、志愿者不愿意参与许可决策,或者干预措施对所选结果没有直接影响。

未来工作

未来类似的干预措施应使用共同制定的社区结果框架。其他自然实验评估应使用方法三角测量来加强对有效性的推断。

试验注册

该试验在 ISRCTN 注册(注册号:ISRCTN81942890)。

资金

这项资助由英国国家健康与保健研究所(NIHR)公共卫生研究计划(NIHR 资助文号:15/129/03)提供,并在;第 12 卷,第 9 期。有关进一步的资助信息,请参见 NIHR 资助和奖项网站。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验