↓ 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)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
13 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
63 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
140 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.
Title
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
Authors

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

Abstract

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 140 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 140 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 14%
Researcher 19 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 9%
Other 8 6%
Other 18 13%
Unknown 47 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 23 16%
Social Sciences 22 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 14%
Psychology 9 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 3%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 51 36%
Attention Score in Context

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 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,848,649
of 25,884,216 outputs
Outputs from Harm Reduction Journal
#295
of 1,153 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,556
of 317,011 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Harm Reduction Journal
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,884,216 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,153 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 28.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 317,011 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 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.