| Methods |
Non‐randomised controlled trial, unit of allocation = community. |
| Participants |
USA (Northern California, southern California, South Carolina).
Experimental = 3 communities
Control = 3 communities
Pairs of communities located in Northern California, southern California, South Carolina. |
| Interventions |
Server training
Community intervention, five components:
1) community mobilisation;
2) responsible beverage service;
3) drinking and driving (law enforcement);
4) underage drinking (reducing availability);
5) alcohol access component.
The primary goal of the responsible beverage service component was to reduce the likelihood of customer intoxication at licensed on‐premise establishments through responsible beverage service practices. A second goal was for licensees to prevent already intoxicated patrons from driving or engaging in other risky behaviour when impaired. Emphasis was placed on the managers' responsibility.
Training; four hour programme for servers, five hours for managers. The underlying philosophy was that of prevention (of intoxication and problems) rather than intervention (after a customer has become intoxicated or is causing problems). |
| Outcomes |
Self‐reported server behaviour (telephone survey of random sample).
Observed server behaviour (using pseudo‐drunks).
(a number of other outcomes were measured for the evaluation of this intervention; the data extracted for this review were restricted to the outcomes for which could be attributed to the server training component). |
| Notes |
Server training one of five strategies encompassing this community intervention. Injury data (traffic crashes) were also collected, however not used in this review as it was not possible to attribute changes in this outcome to the server training component of the intervention. |
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Adequate sequence generation? |
High risk |
Three community pairs were selected; three experimental and three matched comparison communities. |
| Allocation concealment? |
Unclear risk |
No information. |
| Blinding?
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Not reported. |
| Confounders |
Unclear risk |
Each control community was reported as being 'matched' to an experimental community on the basis of similar local geographic area characteristics, similar industrial/agricultural bases and minority compositions. |
| Data collection methods |
Unclear risk |
Managers' attitudes and behaviour were assessed by telephone survey of a random sample.
Pseudo‐patron survey 65 and 67 experimental premises visited at baseline and follow‐up and 67 and 69 control premises visited, respectively. |
| Withdrawals & dropouts |
Unclear risk |
N/A |
| Intervention integrity |
Unclear risk |
In the experimental communities there were 240 premises, 141 were targeted for training of which 72 (51%) attended with 276 staff trained. |
| Duration of follow‐up |
Unclear risk |
Response rates of survey ranged from 60‐69% and 55‐67% for the experimental communities at the pre and post periods, and 55‐62% and 54‐66% in the control, respectively. Measurements at baseline and at 'early stages' of the programme.
Pseudo‐patron surveys were carried out at baseline and 3‐5 months after. |
