Author
Listed:
- Anthony Shakeshaft
- Christopher Doran
- Dennis Petrie
- Courtney Breen
- Alys Havard
- Ansari Abudeen
- Elissa Harwood
- Anton Clifford
- Catherine D'Este
- Stuart Gilmour
- Rob Sanson-Fisher
Abstract
In a cluster randomized controlled trial, Anthony Shakeshaft and colleagues measure the effectiveness of a multi-component community-based intervention for reducing alcohol-related harm.Background: The World Health Organization, governments, and communities agree that community action is likely to reduce risky alcohol consumption and harm. Despite this agreement, there is little rigorous evidence that community action is effective: of the six randomised trials of community action published to date, all were US-based and focused on young people (rather than the whole community), and their outcomes were limited to self-report or alcohol purchase attempts. The objective of this study was to conduct the first non-US randomised controlled trial (RCT) of community action to quantify the effectiveness of this approach in reducing risky alcohol consumption and harms measured using both self-report and routinely collected data. Methods and Findings: We conducted a cluster RCT comprising 20 communities in Australia that had populations of 5,000–20,000, were at least 100 km from an urban centre (population ≥ 100,000), and were not involved in another community alcohol project. Communities were pair-matched, and one member of each pair was randomly allocated to the experimental group. Thirteen interventions were implemented in the experimental communities from 2005 to 2009: community engagement; general practitioner training in alcohol screening and brief intervention (SBI); feedback to key stakeholders; media campaign; workplace policies/practices training; school-based intervention; general practitioner feedback on their prescribing of alcohol medications; community pharmacy-based SBI; web-based SBI; Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services support for SBI; Good Sports program for sports clubs; identifying and targeting high-risk weekends; and hospital emergency department–based SBI. Primary outcomes based on routinely collected data were alcohol-related crime, traffic crashes, and hospital inpatient admissions. Routinely collected data for the entire study period (2001–2009) were obtained in 2010. Secondary outcomes based on pre- and post-intervention surveys (n = 2,977 and 2,255, respectively) were the following: long-term risky drinking, short-term high-risk drinking, short-term risky drinking, weekly consumption, hazardous/harmful alcohol use, and experience of alcohol harm. At the 5% level of statistical significance, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the interventions were effective in the experimental, relative to control, communities for alcohol-related crime, traffic crashes, and hospital inpatient admissions, and for rates of risky alcohol consumption and hazardous/harmful alcohol use. Although respondents in the experimental communities reported statistically significantly lower average weekly consumption (1.90 fewer standard drinks per week, 95% CI = −3.37 to −0.43, p = 0.01) and less alcohol-related verbal abuse (odds ratio = 0.58, 95% CI = 0.35 to 0.96, p = 0.04) post-intervention, the low survey response rates (40% and 24% for the pre- and post-intervention surveys, respectively) require conservative interpretation. The main limitations of this study are as follows: (1) that the study may have been under-powered to detect differences in routinely collected data outcomes as statistically significant, and (2) the low survey response rates. Conclusions: This RCT provides little evidence that community action significantly reduces risky alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms, other than potential reductions in self-reported average weekly consumption and experience of alcohol-related verbal abuse. Complementary legislative action may be required to more effectively reduce alcohol harms. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12607000123448 Background: People have consumed alcoholic beverages throughout history, but alcohol use is now an increasing global public health problem. According to the World Health Organization's 2010 Global Burden of Disease Study, alcohol use is the fifth leading risk factor (after high blood pressure and smoking) for disease and is responsible for 3.9% of the global disease burden. Alcohol use contributes to heart disease, liver disease, depression, some cancers, and many other health conditions. Alcohol also affects the well-being and health of people around those who drink, through alcohol-related crimes and road traffic crashes. The impact of alcohol use on disease and injury depends on the amount of alcohol consumed and the pattern of drinking. Most guidelines define long-term risky drinking as more than four drinks per day on average for men or more than two drinks per day for women (a “drink” is, roughly speaking, a can of beer or a small glass of wine), and short-term risky drinking (also called binge drinking) as seven or more drinks on a single occasion for men or five or more drinks on a single occasion for women. However, recent changes to the Australian guidelines acknowledge that a lower level of alcohol consumption is considered risky (with lifetime risky drinking defined as more than two drinks a day and binge drinking defined as more than four drinks on one occasion). Why Was This Study Done?: In 2010, the World Health Assembly endorsed a global strategy to reduce the harmful use of alcohol. This strategy emphasizes the importance of community action–a process in which a community defines its own needs and determines the actions that are required to meet these needs. Although community action is highly acceptable to community members, few studies have looked at the effectiveness of community action in reducing risky alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm. Here, the researchers undertake a cluster randomized controlled trial (the Alcohol Action in Rural Communities [AARC] project) to quantify the effectiveness of community action in reducing risky alcohol consumption and harms in rural communities in Australia. A cluster randomized trial compares outcomes in clusters of people (here, communities) who receive alternative interventions assigned through the play of chance. What Did the Researchers Do and Find?: The researchers pair-matched 20 rural Australian communities according to the proportion of their population that was Aboriginal (rates of alcohol-related harm are disproportionately higher among Aboriginal individuals than among non-Aboriginal individuals in Australia; they are also higher among young people and males, but the proportions of these two groups across communities was comparable). They randomly assigned one member of each pair to the experimental group and implemented 13 interventions in these communities by negotiating with key individuals in each community to define and implement each intervention. Examples of interventions included general practitioner training in screening for alcohol use disorders and in implementing a brief intervention, and a school-based interactive session designed to reduce alcohol harm among young people. The researchers quantified the effectiveness of the interventions using routinely collected data on alcohol-related crime and road traffic crashes, and on hospital inpatient admissions for alcohol dependence or abuse (which were expected to increase in the experimental group if the intervention was effective because of more people seeking or being referred for treatment). They also examined drinking habits and experiences of alcohol-related harm, such as verbal abuse, among community members using pre- and post-intervention surveys. After implementation of the interventions, the rates of alcohol-related crime, road traffic crashes, and hospital admissions, and of risky and hazardous/harmful alcohol consumption (measured using a validated tool called the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test) were not statistically significantly different in the experimental and control communities (a difference in outcomes that is not statistically significantly different can occur by chance). However, the reported average weekly consumption of alcohol was 20% lower in the experimental communities after the intervention than in the control communities (equivalent to 1.9 fewer standard drinks per week per respondent) and there was less alcohol-related verbal abuse post-intervention in the experimental communities than in the control communities. What Do These Findings Mean?: These findings provide little evidence that community action reduced risky alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms in rural Australian communities. Although there was some evidence of significant reductions in self-reported weekly alcohol consumption and in experiences of alcohol-related verbal abuse, these findings must be interpreted cautiously because they are based on surveys with very low response rates. A larger or differently designed study might provide statistically significant evidence for the effectiveness of community action in reducing risky alcohol consumption. However, given their findings, the researchers suggest that legislative approaches that are beyond the control of individual communities, such as alcohol taxation and restrictions on alcohol availability, may be required to effectively reduce alcohol harms. In other words, community action alone may not be the most effective way to reduce alcohol-related harm. Additional Information: Please access these websites via the online version of this summary at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001617.
Suggested Citation
Anthony Shakeshaft & Christopher Doran & Dennis Petrie & Courtney Breen & Alys Havard & Ansari Abudeen & Elissa Harwood & Anton Clifford & Catherine D'Este & Stuart Gilmour & Rob Sanson-Fisher, 2014.
"The Effectiveness of Community Action in Reducing Risky Alcohol Consumption and Harm: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial,"
PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, March.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pmed00:1001617
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001617
Download full text from publisher
References listed on IDEAS
- Lloyd A. Mancl & Timothy A. DeRouen, 2001.
"A Covariance Estimator for GEE with Improved Small‐Sample Properties,"
Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(1), pages 126-134, March.
- Petrie, Dennis & Doran, Chris & Shakeshaft, Anthony & Sanson-Fisher, Rob, 2008.
"The relationship between alcohol consumption and self-reported health status using the EQ5D: Evidence from rural Australia,"
Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(11), pages 1717-1726, December.
- Perry, C.L. & Williams, C.L. & Veblen-Mortenson, S. & Toomey, T.L. & Komro, K.A. & Anstine, P.S. & McGovern, P.G. & Finnegan, J.R. & Forster, J.L. & Wagenaar, A.C. & Wolfson, M., 1996.
"Project Northland: Outcomes of a communitywide alcohol use prevention program during early adolescence,"
American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 86(7), pages 956-965.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
Most related items
These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
- A. Colin Cameron & Jonah B. Gelbach & Douglas L. Miller, 2008.
"Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors,"
The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 414-427, August.
- Westgate, Philip M., 2013.
"A bias-corrected covariance estimator for improved inference when using an unstructured correlation with quadratic inference functions,"
Statistics & Probability Letters, Elsevier, vol. 83(6), pages 1553-1558.
- You-Gan Wang & Yuning Zhao, 2007.
"A Modified Pseudolikelihood Approach for Analysis of Longitudinal Data,"
Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(3), pages 681-689, September.
- Haiyan Wang & Michael Akritas, 2010.
"Inference from heteroscedastic functional data,"
Journal of Nonparametric Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 149-168.
- Paniagua, Victoria, 2022.
"When clients vote for brokers: How elections improve public goods provision in urban slums,"
World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
- Galea, Manuel & de Castro, Mário, 2017.
"Robust inference in a linear functional model with replications using the t distribution,"
Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 134-145.
- Richard F. Catalano & M. Lisa Berglund & Jean A. M. Ryan & Heather S. Lonczak & J. David Hawkins, 2004.
"Positive Youth Development in the United States: Research Findings on Evaluations of Positive Youth Development Programs,"
The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 591(1), pages 98-124, January.
- Michael Eichinger & Tatiana Görig & Sabine Georg & Dorle Hoffmann & Diana Sonntag & Heike Philippi & Jochem König & Michael S. Urschitz & Freia De Bock, 2022.
"Evaluation of a Complex Intervention to Strengthen Participation-Centred Care for Children with Special Healthcare Needs: Protocol of the Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomised PART-CHILD Trial,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-18, December.
- Fan, Chunpeng & Zhang, Donghui, 2014.
"Wald-type rank tests: A GEE approach,"
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1-16.
- Francis L. Huang, 2022.
"Analyzing Cross-Sectionally Clustered Data Using Generalized Estimating Equations,"
Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 47(1), pages 101-125, February.
- Suhail Ahmad Bhat & Mushtaq Ahmad Darzi & Iqbal Ahmad Hakim, 2019.
"Understanding Social Marketing and Well-being: A Review of Selective Databases,"
Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, , vol. 44(2), pages 75-87, June.
- Masahiko Gosho & Hisashi Noma & Kazushi Maruo, 2021.
"Practical Review and Comparison of Modified Covariance Estimators for Linear Mixed Models in Small‐sample Longitudinal Studies with Missing Data,"
International Statistical Review, International Statistical Institute, vol. 89(3), pages 550-572, December.
- Bruno Casal & Eva Rodríguez-Míguez & Berta Rivera, 2020.
"Measuring intangible cost-of-morbidity due to substance dependence: implications of using alternative preference-based instruments,"
The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 1039-1048, September.
- Michael P. Fay & Barry I. Graubard, 2001.
"Small-Sample Adjustments for Wald-Type Tests Using Sandwich Estimators,"
Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(4), pages 1198-1206, December.
- Saskia Litière & Ariel Alonso & Geert Molenberghs, 2007.
"Type I and Type II Error Under Random-Effects Misspecification in Generalized Linear Mixed Models,"
Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 1038-1044, December.
- Diana Miglioretti & Patrick Heagerty, 2004.
"Marginal Modeling of Multilevel Binary Data with Time-Varying Covariates,"
UW Biostatistics Working Paper Series
1050, Berkeley Electronic Press.
- Cheng, Guang & Yu, Zhuqing & Huang, Jianhua Z., 2013.
"The cluster bootstrap consistency in generalized estimating equations,"
Journal of Multivariate Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 33-47.
- Timothy J. Beebe & Patricia A. Harrison & Anu Sharma & Scott Hedger, 2001.
"The Community Readiness Survey,"
Evaluation Review, , vol. 25(1), pages 55-71, February.
- Bing Lu & John S. Preisser & Bahjat F. Qaqish & Chirayath Suchindran & Shrikant I. Bangdiwala & Mark Wolfson, 2007.
"A Comparison of Two Bias-Corrected Covariance Estimators for Generalized Estimating Equations,"
Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 63(3), pages 935-941, September.
- Kimberly S. Compton & Peter Barr & Katherine J. Karriker-Jaffe & Cristina Bares & Fazil Aliev & Brian Mustanski & Danielle Dick & Karen G. Chartier, 2019.
"Evaluating Neighborhood, Social, and Genetic Influences on Precursors of Alcohol Use Risk Behavior in African American Adolescents,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-17, August.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1001617. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.