↓ Skip to main content

Do managed alcohol programs change patterns of alcohol consumption and reduce related harm? A pilot study

Overview of attention for article published in Harm Reduction Journal, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

1 news outlet
16 tweeters
1 Facebook page


46 Dimensions

Readers on

121 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Do managed alcohol programs change patterns of alcohol consumption and reduce related harm? A pilot study
Published in
Harm Reduction Journal, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12954-016-0103-4
Pubmed ID

Kate Vallance, Tim Stockwell, Bernie Pauly, Clifton Chow, Erin Gray, Bonnie Krysowaty, Kathleen Perkin, Jinhui Zhao


Managed alcohol programs (MAPs) are a harm reduction strategy for people with severe alcohol dependence and unstable housing. MAPs provide controlled access to alcohol usually alongside accommodation, meals, and other supports. Patterns of alcohol consumption and related harms among MAP participants and controls from a homeless shelter in Thunder Bay, Ontario, were investigated in 2013. Structured interviews were conducted with 18 MAP and 20 control participants assessed as alcohol dependent with most using non-beverage alcohol (NBA). Qualitative interviews were conducted with seven participants and four MAP staff concerning perceptions and experiences of the program. Program alcohol consumption records were obtained for MAP participants, and records of police contacts and use of health services were obtained for participants and controls. Some participants' liver function test (LFT) results were available for before and after MAP entry. Compared with periods off the MAP, MAP participants had 41 % fewer police contacts, 33 % fewer police contacts leading to custody time (x (2) = 43.84, P < 0.001), 87 % fewer detox admissions (t = -1.68, P = 0.06), and 32 % fewer hospital admissions (t = -2.08, P = 0.03). MAP and control participants shared similar characteristics, indicating the groups were broadly comparable. There were reductions in nearly all available LFT scores after MAP entry. Compared with controls, MAP participants had 43 % fewer police contacts, significantly fewer police contacts (-38 %) that resulted in custody time (x (2) = 66.10, P < 0.001), 70 % fewer detox admissions (t = -2.19, P = 0.02), and 47 % fewer emergency room presentations. NBA use was significantly less frequent for MAP participants versus controls (t = -2.34, P < 0.05). Marked but non-significant reductions were observed in the number of participants self-reporting alcohol-related harms in the domains of home life, legal issues, and withdrawal seizures. Qualitative interviews with staff and MAP participants provided additional insight into reductions of non-beverage alcohol use and reductions of police and health-care contacts. It was unclear if overall volume of alcohol consumption was reduced as a result of MAP participation. The quantitative and qualitative findings of this pilot study suggest that MAP participation was associated with a number of positive outcomes including fewer hospital admissions, detox episodes, and police contacts leading to custody, reduced NBA consumption, and decreases in some alcohol-related harms. These encouraging trends are being investigated in a larger national study.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 121 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 121 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 17%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 12%
Student > Bachelor 13 11%
Student > Postgraduate 6 5%
Other 15 12%
Unknown 37 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 17%
Social Sciences 21 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 13%
Psychology 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 41 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 July 2020.
All research outputs
of 19,814,211 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
of 785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 276,089 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,814,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 276,089 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them