BackgroundAn increased prevalence of risky alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm has been reported for members of sporting groups and at sporting venues compared with non-sporting populations. While sports clubs and venues represent opportune settings to implement strategies to reduce such risks, no controlled trials have been reported. The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of an alcohol management intervention in reducing risky alcohol consumption and the risk of alcohol-related harm among community football club members.MethodA cluster randomised controlled trial of an alcohol management intervention was undertaken with non-elite, community football clubs and their members in New South Wales, Australia. Risky alcohol consumption (5+ drinks) at the club and risk of alcohol-related harm using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) were measured at baseline and postintervention.ResultsEighty-eight clubs participated in the trial (n=43, Intervention; n=45, Control) and separate cross-sectional samples of club members completed the baseline (N=1411) and postintervention (N=1143) surveys. Postintervention, a significantly lower proportion of intervention club members reported: risky alcohol consumption at the club (Intervention: 19%; Control: 24%; OR: 0.63 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.00); p=0.05); risk of alcohol-related harm (Intervention: 38%; Control: 45%; OR: 0.58 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.87); p<0.01); alcohol consumption risk (Intervention: 47%; Control: 55%; OR: 0.60 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.87); p<0.01) and possible alcohol dependence (Intervention: 1%; Control: 4%; OR: 0.20 (95% CI 0.06 to 0.65); p<0.01).ConclusionsWith large numbers of people worldwide playing, watching and sports officiating, enhancing club-based alcohol management interventions could make a substantial contribution to reducing the burden of alcohol misuse in communities.Trial registration numberACTRN12609000224224.
Northern Territory prisoners were followed up after release to determine the effect of an alcohol education course on their alcohol consumption, drinking group, disruptive behavior, criminal activity, family relationships, how they use their time, general health, ability to cope and take responsibility. Measures were obtained both from prisoners and key informants, and two groups of prisoners were compared: those who completed the course and others who had not done the course. A high level of correspondence was found between measures from key informants and prisoners. The prisoners attending the course showed significant improvements on all dimensions when compared to the control subjects.
First‐year psychology students (N = 213) recorded details of spontaneous comparison with peers two weeks prior to submission and one week after return of their laboratory reports, for three successive assignments. Results showed that students did make comparisons, particularly after receiving feedback about their performance, but that a sizable minority did not compare at all despite numerous opportunities to do so. Over the three reports, the frequency of comparison prior to evaluation decreased; comparisons after feedback were more frequent, and increased over reports. While comparison with others similar in ability was the most frequent choice, comparison with dissimilar, better others was also common, particularly after objective feedback had been received. The impact of comparison was not generally as predicted by social comparison theory. Although certainty in predicting grades increased over time, it was not as a function of comparison; nor did accuracy increase with increased comparison. Satisfaction with grades varied directly with level of performance. There was a marked lack of interest in downward comparison; regardless of ability level, subjects expressed a desire for additional comparison with better others. The study highlights the importance of longitudinal studies of spontaneous comparison to test the relationship between initial uncertainty, choice of comparison others, and their impact on ability assessments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.