Article Text

PDF
Injuries and alcohol management plans in remote Indigenous communities: a two-community comparison
  1. Caryn West1,
  2. Reinhold Muller2,
  3. Alan R Clough3,4
  1. 1Department of Nursing, Midwifery and Nutrition, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
  2. 2Department of Epidemiologist/Biostatistician, Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University Cairns Campus, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
  3. 3Community-Based Health Promotion and Prevention Studies Group, Australian Institute of Tropical Health and Medicine, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
  4. 4School of Public Health, Tropical Medicine and Rehabilitation Science, James Cook University, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Caryn West; caryn.west{at}jcu.edu.au

Abstract

To curb high rates of alcohol-related violence and injury in Indigenous communities, alcohol management plans (AMPs) were implemented in 2002–2003 and tightened in 2008. This project compares injury presentations and alcohol involvement from two Indigenous Cape York communities, one that entered full prohibition and one that did not. Aclinical file audit was performed for the period 2006–2011, capturing changes in alcohol availability. Medical files were searched for injury presentation documenting type of injury, cause of injury (including alcohol), date of injury and outcomes of all presenting injuries for the time period 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2011, capturing the major changes of the 2008 AMP restrictions. Findings indicated injury presentation rates were higher in both communities before prohibition than afterwards andreduction was more pronounced in community 2 (prohibition). Ongoing research is imperative, as this area is characterised by a near-absence of evidence.

  • alcohol management plans
  • indigenous
  • injury

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors All authors declare a substantial contribution to all aspects of the research design, analysis and interpretation of data and contribution to the intellectual content of the article, and are willing to take public responsibility for the content of the article. CW contributed the following: substantial contributions to conception and design, and acquisition of data; drafting and revising for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. RM contributed the following: substantial contributions to conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data; drafting and revising for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published. ARC contributed the following: substantial contributions to conception and design, and acquisition of data; drafting and revising for important intellectual content; and final approval of the version to be published.

  • Funding The study was funded by the National Health andMedical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC, ECR grant #1070931: WEST). ARC holds an NHMRC Career Development Award (APP1046773). Funding bodies had no role in the study design, in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data, in the writing of the manuscript, or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Ethics approval Human Research Ethics Committee James Cook University (H5618 and H5241), and Cairns and Hinterland Hospital and Health Services District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/14/QCH/3 – 883).

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.