STAGE 5. Defining the action plan

What steps should be completed?

Step 1: Specify intervention actions

INTERVENTIONS TO MODIFY CONTEXTS WHERE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE CONSUMED

Promoting responsible dispensation of alcoholic beverages

Training the staff in establishments where alcoholic beverages are served to dispense alcohol responsibly (not to serve alcohol to minors or intoxicated clients, to dissuade clients who are under the influence of alcohol from driving and to mediate to prevent violent behaviours) is associated with a reduction in fatal traffic accidents,^1,2 aggression^3,4 and injuries,⁵ and increased customer age checks.⁶ However, the results of interventions promoting responsible dispensation of alcoholic beverages are largely dependent on community alcohol and enforcement policy. As an isolated measure, their results are contradictory, but they are more effective when there are laws prohibiting alcohol from being sold to intoxicated customers and appropriate compliance mechanisms are in place.^7,8

 

Prohibiting alcohol consumption in public spaces not intended for this purpose (streets, squares, beach areas, etc.)

There is no conclusive evidence on this measure, but various studies point out that restricting alcohol consumption in public spaces reduces alcohol consumption, particularly by adolescents and young people.^9,10,11

 

Recommendations when implementing interventions to modify the contexts where alcoholic beverages are consumed: 

GOOD FUNCTIONING	POOR FUNCTIONING
Promote responsible alcoholic beverage service within the broader framework of a community policy on alcohol. Ensure effective enforcement of alcohol laws and restrictions on alcohol consumption in public spaces (if applicable). Keep policies to prevent alcohol consumption in public spaces active for a long time.	Promote responsible dispensation of alcoholic beverages in isolation, without some connection to a community policy.

 

References:

1 Chaloupka FJ, Saffer H & Grossman M. (1993). Alcohol-control policies and motor-vehicle fatalities. Journal of Legal Studies. 22: 161-86.

2 Holder HD & Waagenaar AC. (1994). Mandated server training and reduced alcohol-involved traffic crashes: a time-series analysis of the Oregon experience. Accident Analysis & Prevention. 26: 89-97.

3 Wallin E, Grinpenberg J & Andreasson S. (2002). Too drunk for a beer? A study of overserving in Stockholm. Addiction. 97: 901-907.

4 Graham K et al. (2004). The effect of the Safer Bars programme on physical aggression in bars: results of a randomised controlled trial. Drug & Alcohol Review, 23: 31-41.

5 Ker K & Chinnock P. (2006). Interventions in the alcohol server settings for preventing injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (2):CD005244.pub2.

6 Sloan FA, Stout EM, Whethetten-Goldstein K & Liang L. (2000). Drinkers drivers and bartenders: Balancing private choices and public accountability. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

7 WHO (2009). Evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

8 Wallin E, Norstrom T & Andreasson S. (2003). Alcohol prevention targeting licensed premises: a study of effects on violence. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 64(2):270–7.

9 Hibell B et al. (2004). The ESPAD report 2003: Alcohol and other drug use among students in 35 European countries. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Council for Information on Alcohol and Other Drugs and The Pompidou Group at the Council of Europe.

10 Giesbrecht N & Douglas RR. (1990). The demonstration project and comprehensive community programming: Dilemmas in preventing alcohol-related problems. Paper presented at the International Conference on Evaluating Community Prevention Strategies: Alcohol and Other Drugs, San Diego, CA.

11 Conway K. (2002). Booze and beach bans: Turning the tide through community action in New Zealand. Health Promotion International. 17: 171-7