Walsh G W, Bondy S J, Rehm J
Addiction Research Foundation, Social and Evaluation Research Department, Toronto, Ontario.
Can J Public Health. 1998 Jul-Aug;89(4):241-7. doi: 10.1007/BF03403927.
This study compared 18 low-risk drinking guidelines that were gathered from Canadian government agencies, non-government agencies, medical bodies, and public and private agencies involved in the treatment of addictions. The results show that two sets of guidelines are predominantly used in Ontario. The formulation of these guidelines was entirely independent and their intended audiences are also different. However, a direct comparison of the two guidelines shows that differences are more apparent than real. This study also examines the literature evaluating low-risk drinking guidelines Very little literature exists on evaluating low-risk drinking guidelines as vehicles for primary prevention and it is not known to what extent such guidelines influence knowledge and drinking behaviour. Future low-risk drinking recommendations should be evaluated for knowledge about standard drink units, awareness of the guidelines, use of materials and aids included in the dissemination program, and changes in behaviour from campaign exposure.
本研究比较了从加拿大政府机构、非政府机构、医学团体以及参与成瘾治疗的公共和私人机构收集的18条低风险饮酒指南。结果显示,安大略省主要使用两套指南。这些指南的制定完全独立,其目标受众也有所不同。然而,对这两套指南的直接比较表明,差异更多是表面上的而非实际存在的。本研究还审视了评估低风险饮酒指南的文献。关于将低风险饮酒指南作为一级预防手段进行评估的文献极少,而且此类指南在多大程度上影响知识和饮酒行为尚不清楚。未来的低风险饮酒建议应从以下方面进行评估:对标准饮酒单位的了解、对指南的知晓度、传播项目中所包含材料和辅助工具的使用情况,以及因接触宣传活动而导致的行为变化。