首页> 外文期刊>BMC Public Health >An empirical approach to selecting community-based alcohol interventions: combining research evidence, rural community views and professional opinion
【24h】

An empirical approach to selecting community-based alcohol interventions: combining research evidence, rural community views and professional opinion

机译:选择基于社区的酒精干预措施的经验方法:结合研究证据,农村社区的观点和专业意见

获取原文
       

摘要

Background 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. Method 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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.
机译:背景技术鉴于基于社区的酒精干预的研究证据有限,本研究探讨了农村社区和酒精专业人士的干预偏好以及影响他们选择的因素。方法通过对澳大利亚20个区域性社区中随机选择的个人进行的调查来确定社区偏好。酒精专业人士的偏好是通过对澳大利亚酒精和其他药物专业协会的随机成员进行的调查确定的。为了确定首选的干预措施以及对这些干预措施的支持程度,两项调查中都嵌入了预算分配方案,要求受访者将给定的预算分配给不同的干预措施。估计了Tobit回归模型以识别可解释干预偏好差异的特征。结果社区受访者最常选择学校计划(88.0%),并分配了最大比例的资金,其次是促进更安全的饮酒(71.3%),社区计划(61.4%)和警察执行酒精法(60.4%)。专业人士最常选择全科医生培训(61.0%),并为其分配了最大比例的资金,其次是学校课程(36.6%),社区课程(33.8%)和促进安全饮酒(31.7%)。社区的观点容易引起回应偏见。没有专业人士偏好的重要预测指标。结论在缺乏有效的基于社区的酒精干预的充分研究证据的情况下,农村社区和专业人员都大力支持学校计划,促进更安全饮酒和社区计划。农村社区还支持警察执行酒精法,而专业人员则支持全科医生培训。这些策略组合的影响需要严格评估。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号