| Literature DB >> 23161893 |
P Siriwardhana1, A H Dawson, R Abeyasinge.
Abstract
AIMS: To assess the effectiveness and acceptability of a brief community-based educational program on changing the drinking pattern of alcohol in a rural community.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23161893 PMCID: PMC3571206 DOI: 10.1093/alcalc/ags116
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Alcohol Alcohol ISSN: 0735-0414 Impact factor: 2.826
Fig. 1.The description of male study population exclusions and lost to study the follow-up described by their baseline audit status.
Timing of the planned community interventions
| Intervention sequence | |
|---|---|
| Time 0 | Poster Campaign 1 |
| Week 1 | Drama |
| Week 3 | Poster Campaign 2 & Pamphlet |
| Week 5 | Drama |
| Week 9 | Drama |
| Week 13 | Drama |
At week 10 and week 15, the villagers spontaneously created and performed their own drama production.
From week three–nine the researcher conducted brief interventions (between 15 and 45 min) with all dependent drinkers emphasizing a reduction in intake or switch to licensed alcohol.
Basic demographic data on study population
| Intervention village (%) | Control village (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Village size | ||
| Education level | 0.32 km2 | 0.36 km2 |
| No formal education | 4.13 | 2.4 |
| Grade 1–5 | 27.27 | 29.6 |
| Up to O/L | 56.19 | 60.8 |
| Up to A/L | 12.39 | 7.2 |
| Income level | ||
| Rs 0–4999 | 9.1 | 8.8 |
| Rs 5000–14,999 | 46.2 | 60.8 |
| Rs 15,000–24,999 | 41.3 | 34.4 |
| Rs ≥ 25,000 | 3.3 | 0.0 |
| Age level | ||
| 18–24 | 16.5 | 12 |
| 25–30 | 14.1 | 12 |
| 31–40 | 15.7 | 25.6 |
| 41–50 | 22.3 | 23.2 |
| 51–60 | 20.6 | 14.4 |
| 61–70 | 4.9 | 6.4 |
| 71–80 | 5.7 | 6.4 |
| Employment structure | ||
| Casual labor | 48.8 | 57.6 |
| Driving | 9.1 | 3.2 |
| Farming | 6.6 | 7.2 |
| Hair cutting | 5.0 | 0.8 |
| Carpenter/mason | 6.6 | 12.8 |
| Small business | 7.4 | 8.0 |
| Government employed | 8.3 | 4.0 |
| Unemployed | 8.3 | 6.4 |
Drinking pattern in the intervention and control villages.
| Intervention village* | Control village | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRE ( | 6 months ( | 24 months ( | PRE ( | 6 months ( | 24 months ( | |
| Level of drinking AUDIT* | ||||||
| Low-risk (0–7) | 33.1 (40) | 53.8 (63) | 46.6 (48) | 32.8 (41) | 29.8 (37) | 23.5 (23) |
| Hazardous (8–15) | 29.8 (36) | 26.5 (31) | 38.8 (40) | 29.6 (37) | 37.9 (47) | 40.8 (40) |
| Harmful (16–19) | 21.5 (26) | 12.0 (14) | 8.7 (9) | 21.6 (27) | 20.2 (25) | 24.5 (24) |
| Dependent >20 | 15.7 (19) | 7.7 (9) | 5.8 (6) | 16.0 (20) | 12.1 (15) | 11.2 (11) |
| Drinking frequency | ||||||
| No alcohol | 17.4 (21) | 26.5 (31) | 22.3 (23) | 18.4 (23) | 15.3 (19) | 14.1 (14) |
| Monthly or less | 15.7 (19) | 36.8 (43) | 35.0 (36) | 30.4 (38) | 29.8 (37) | 24.2 (24) |
| 2–4 times/month | 29.8 (36) | 23.1 (27) | 25.2 (26) | 16.0 (20) | 25.8 (32) | 29.3 (29) |
| 2–3 times a week | 10.7 (13) | 12.0 (14) | 16.5 (17) | 15.2 (19) | 15.3 (19) | 21.2 (21) |
| ≥4 times a week | 26.4 (32) | 1.7 (2) | 1.0 (1) | 20.0 (25) | 13.7 (17) | 11.1 (11) |
| Drinking volume | ||||||
| No alcohol | 17.4 (21) | 26.5 (31) | 22.3 (23) | 18.4 (23) | (15.3) 19 | (14.1) 14 |
| 1–4 units | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 14.6 (15) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 or 6 units | 12.4 (15) | 18.8 (22) | 30.1 (31) | 7.2 (9) | 8.1 (10) | 8.1 (8) |
| 7–9 units | 24.8 (30) | 31.6 (37) | 16.5 (17) | 29.6 (37) | 33.1 (41) | 35.4 (35) |
| ≥10 units | 45.5 (55) | 23.1 (27) | 16.5 (17) | 44.8 (56) | 43.5 (54) | 42.4 (42) |
| Type of alcohol | ||||||
| Kasippu | 50.4 (61) | 11.1 (13) | 0 | 57.6 (72) | 52.4 (65) | 32.3 (32) |
| Arrack | 24.0 (29) | 50.4 (59) | 59.2 (61) | 20.0 (25) | 26.6 (33) | 33.3 (33) |
| Beer | 7.4 (9) | 11.1 (13) | 18.4 (19) | 4.0 (5) | 5.6 (7) | 5.1 (5) |
| Toddy | 0.8 (1) | 0.9 (1) | 0 (0) | 0 | 0 | 15.2 (15) |
| Nil | 17.4 (21) | 26.5 (31) | 22.3 (23) | 18.4 (23) | 19 (15.3) | 14.1 (14) |
*P-values are calculated for comparison of intervention with control village.
Fig. 5.Mens' perceptions of changes in behavior within the intervention village.
Fig. 2.The comparison of baseline median AUDIT scores with interquartile ranges in both the intervention and control villages. There is no statistical difference, P = 0.95 (Mann–Whitney).
Fig. 3.Box plot of the differences in individuals' AUDIT scores from baseline at 6 and 24 months. Plotted as median, IQR and range.
Fig. 4.Linear regression plot of the change in an individual's AUDIT score against their baseline score.