| Literature DB >> 26332276 |
John H Wiggers1,2, Andrew Hacker1, Melanie Kingsland1,2, Christophe Lecathelinais2, Jennifer Tindall2, Jennifer A Bowman3, Luke Wolfenden1,2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Enforcement of liquor licensing laws is limited by inadequate police information systems. This study aimed to: (i) determine the effectiveness of an intervention in facilitating police recording of the alcohol consumption characteristics of people involved in assaults; and (ii) describe such characteristics by geographic area and setting of alcohol consumption. DESIGN AND METHODS: A stepped wedge trial was conducted across New South Wales, Australia. An intervention to facilitate police recording of alcohol consumption information for people involved in incidents was implemented. For people involved in an assault the proportion for which alcohol consumption information was recorded was assessed. The proportion of assaults that were alcohol related, the proportions of people that consumed alcohol prior to the assault, were intoxicated, and had consumed alcohol in various settings, are described.Entities:
Keywords: alcohol; assault; data collection; intervention; police
Year: 2015 PMID: 26332276 PMCID: PMC5049651 DOI: 10.1111/dar.12330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Drug Alcohol Rev ISSN: 0959-5236
Recording of alcohol characteristics information for people involved in an incident of assault at 1‐month post‐intervention and from second month to completion of study
| Information item | Area | Mean monthly % of people: 1 month post‐intervention | Mean monthly % of people: from 2nd month to end of study |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prior alcohol consumption status | 1 | 84% ( | 89% (SD = 2.2% |
| 2 | 79% ( | 89% (SD = 3.0% | |
| 3 | 85% ( | 91% (SD = 1.2% | |
| Intoxication level | 1 | 100% ( | >99% (SD = 0.08% |
| 2 | 100% ( | >99% (SD = 0.07% | |
| 3 | 100% ( | >99% (SD = 0.03% | |
| Setting of alcohol consumption | 1 | 86% ( | 89% (SD = 2.0% |
| 2 | 84% ( | 89% (SD = 2.4% | |
| 3 | 84% ( | 85% (SD = 1.9% | |
| Licensed premises name and address | 1 | 96% ( | 98% (SD = 1.8% |
| 2 | 98% ( | 98% (SD = 1.7% | |
| 3 | 98% ( | 99% (SD = 0.8% |
Mean monthly proportion of assault incidents flagged as ‘alcohol‐related’, pre‐ and post‐intervention implementation, by area
| Area | % assault incidents ‘flagged’ as alcohol‐related pre‐intervention (SD) | % assault incidents ‘flagged’ as alcohol‐related post‐intervention (SD) | Adjusted |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 33.2% (3.81) | 49.7% (2.90) | 17.9% | <0.0001 |
| 2 | 29.0% (3.14) | 47.0% (2.86) | 16.4% | <0.0001 |
| 3 | 18.5% (2.74) | 37.5% (2.21) | 15.0% | <0.0001 |
| All | 26.0% (7.65) | 44.5% (5.83) | 18.5% | <0.0001 |
Adjusted for seasonal variation and underlying trends over time.
Figure 1Proportion of assault incidents flagged as alcohol related, pre‐ and post‐intervention, by area.
Alcohol characteristics of people involved in assault incidents, by area
| Alcohol characteristic | Area | Mean monthly % at completion of follow‐up |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Consumption of alcohol prior to incident | 1 | 39% (SD: 2.8% | <0.0001 |
| 2 | 37% (SD: 2.6% | ||
| 3 | 29% (SD: 1.8% | ||
| Intoxicated | 1 | 71% (SD: 2.0% | 0.0006 |
| 2 | 70% (SD: 1.7% | ||
| 3 | 69% (SD: 1.3% | ||
| Consumed alcohol on a licensed premises | 1 | 39% (SD: 4.4% | <0.0001 |
| 2 | 42% (SD: 3.8% | ||
| 3 | 54% (SD: 4.3% | ||
| Consumed alcohol in public place | 1 | 4% (SD: 1.1% | <0.0001 |
| 2 | 5% (SD: 1.6% | ||
| 3 | 5% (SD: 1.0% | ||
| Consumed alcohol in a private residence/home | 1 | 55% (SD: 3.9% | <0.0001 |
| 2 | 50% (SD: 3.1% | ||
| 3 | 39% (SD: 3.7% | ||
| Consumed alcohol in a non‐licensed restaurant/cafe | 1 | 0.04% (SD: 0% | — |
| 2 | 0% ( | ||
| 3 | 0% ( | ||
| Consumed alcohol in ‘other’ location | 1 | 3% (SD: 1.5% | 0.06 |
| 2 | 2% (SD: 1.6% | ||
| 3 | 2% (SD: 0.6% |
aPeople whose intoxication status was recorded as ‘not known’ were excluded from the denominator. bPeople whose last place of consumption was recorded as ‘not known’ were excluded from the denominator.
Location of prior alcohol consumption for ‘intoxicated’ people (mean monthly proportions), by area
| Last place of consumption | Area 1: % of intoxicated people ( | Area 2: % of intoxicated people ( | Area 3: % of intoxicated people ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Licensed premises | 39% (SD: 4.8%) | 43% (SD: 4.3%) | 56% (SD: 4.8%) |
| Residence/home | 55% (SD: 4.2%) | 49% (SD: 3.6%) | 37% (SD: 4.3%) |
| Non‐licensed restaurant/café | 0.03% (SD: 0.1%) | 0% | 0% |
| Event/function | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| Public place | 4% (SD: 1.4%) | 6% (SD: 1.9%) | 5% (SD: 1.1%) |
| Other | 2% (SD: 1.6%) | 2% (SD: 1.5%) | 2% (SD: 0.7%) |
| All | 100% | 100% | 100% |