Evaluation of a responsible beverage service and enforcement program: Effects on bar patron intoxication and potential impaired driving by young adults
Evaluation of a responsible beverage service and enforcement program: Effects on bar patron intoxication and potential impaired driving by young adults
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/15389588.2017.1285401
复制
发表时间：
2017-01-01
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
McKnight, A. Scott
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fell, James C.;Fisher, Deborah A.;McKnight, A. Scott
目的：对酒精相关伤害(暴力、伤害、疾病)的研究表明，最重要的危险因素是饮酒量以及是否继续为明显醉酒的顾客提供服务。这项研究的目的是调查负责任的饮料服务(RBS)/加强酒精执法干预对酒吧、酒吧顾客和不良驾驶的影响。方法：两个社区-纽约门罗县和俄亥俄州克利夫兰-参与了示范项目和评估。这项干预将苏格兰皇家银行的培训、有针对性的执法和执法部门的纠正行动随机抽样到每个社区的10个确定的问题酒吧中，而不是10个匹配的不干预问题酒吧。结果：在纽约州门罗县，在14项结果指标中，有7项指标干预前后差异有统计学意义。在这些措施中，有6项表明朝着理想或积极的方向变化，2项措施表明朝着不受欢迎或消极的方向变化。值得注意的是，在积极的方向上，干预酒吧顾客醉酒的比例从干预前的44%下降到干预后的27%，顾客的平均血液酒精浓度从干预前的0.097 g/dL下降到干预后的0.059 g/dL。在俄亥俄州克利夫兰，14项指标中有6项在干预前后有统计学意义的变化，其中6项为正向变化，4项为负向变化。值得注意的是，在干预酒吧拒绝接受假醉酒服务的顾客比例从6%上升到29%。结论：在每个社区分析的14项结果指标中，大多数显示与干预相关的积极变化，但也有一些显示出负面关联。大约一半的测量没有显示出显著意义，或者样本量太小，或者数据不可用。因此，这些示范项目的结果充其量也是喜忧参半。然而，干预行动中也出现了一些积极的迹象。看来，当酒吧经理和老板意识到这一计划及其执行情况，当服务员接受过苏格兰皇家银行适当的培训时，可能会有更少的顾客喝醉，而且可能会做出更大的努力，拒绝为明显喝醉的顾客提供服务。鉴于大约一半被捕的受损司机最后一次饮酒是在有执照的场所，广泛实施这一策略有可能有助于减少受损驾驶。
Objective: Studies of alcohol-related harm (violence, injury, illness) suggest that the most significant risk factors are the amount of alcohol consumed and whether obviously intoxicated patrons continue to be served. This study's objective was to investigate the effects of a responsible beverage service (RBS)/enhanced alcohol enforcement intervention on bars, bar patrons, and impaired driving.Method: Two communities-Monroe County, New York, and Cleveland, Ohio-participated in a demonstration program and evaluation. The intervention applied RBS training, targeted enforcement, and corrective actions by law enforcement to a random sample of 10 identified problem bars in each community compared to 10 matched nonintervention problem bars. Data were collected over 3 waves on bar serving practices, bar patron intoxication, drinking and driving, and other alcohol-related harm from intervention and control bars and treatment and comparison communities.Results: In Monroe County, New York, of the 14 outcome measures analyzed, 7 measures showed statistically significant differences from pre- to postintervention. Six of those measures indicated changes in the desired or positive direction and 2 measures were in the undesired or negative direction. Of note in the positive direction, the percentage of intervention bar patrons who were intoxicated decreased from 44 to 27% and the average blood alcohol concentration of patrons decreased from 0.097 to 0.059 g/dL pre- to postintervention. In Cleveland, Ohio, 6 of the 14 measures showed statistically significant changes pre- to postintervention with 6 in the positive direction and 4 in the negative direction. Of note, the percentage of pseudo-intoxicated patrons denied service in intervention bars increased from 6 to 29%.Conclusions: Of the 14 outcome measures that were analyzed in each community, most indicated positive changes associated with the intervention, but others showed negative associations. About half of the measures showed no significance, the sample sizes were too small, or the data were unavailable. Therefore, at best, the results of these demonstration programs were mixed. There were, however, some positive indications from the intervention. It appears that when bar managers and owners are aware of the program and its enforcement and when servers are properly trained in RBS, fewer patrons may become intoxicated and greater efforts may be made to deny service to obviously intoxicated patrons. Given that about half of arrested impaired drivers had their last drink at a licensed establishment, widespread implementation of this strategy has the potential to help reduce impaired driving.