Workplace intervention programmes for decreasing alcohol use in military personnel: a systematic review

A systematic review of the efficacy, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of workplace-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of problematic substance use

Employee alcohol and other drug use can negatively impact the workplace, resulting in absenteeism, reduced productivity, high turnover, and worksite safety issues. As the workplace can influence employee substance use through environmental and cultural factors, it also presents a key opportunity to deliver interventions, particularly to employees who may not otherwise seek help. This is a systematic review of workplace-based interventions for the prevention and treatment of problematic substance use. Five databases were searched for efficacy, effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness studies and reviews published since 2010 that measured use of psychoactive substances (i.e., alcohol, cannabis, hallucinogens, inhalants, opioids, sedatives, hypnotics, anxiolytics, and stimulants) as a primary or secondary outcome, in employees aged over 18. Thirty-nine articles were identified, 28 describing primary research and 11 reviews, most of which focused solely on alcohol use. Heterogeneity between studies with respect to intervention and evaluation design limited the degree to which findings could be synthesized, however, there is some promising evidence for workplace-based universal health promotion interventions, targeted brief interventions, and universal substance use screening. The few studies that examined implementation in the workplace revealed specific barriers including lack of engagement with e-health interventions, heavy use and reluctance to seek help amongst male employees, and confidentiality concerns. Tailoring interventions to each workplace, and ease of implementation and employee engagement emerged as facilitators. Further high-quality research is needed to examine the effectiveness of workplace substance use testing, Employee Assistance Programs, and strategies targeting the use of substances other than alcohol in the workplace.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=227598, PROSPERO [CRD42021227598].

A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Prevent Alcohol and Risk-Related Trauma in Youth Program in Reducing Alcohol-Related Harms in Young Naval Trainees

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to test whether participation in an alcohol risk reduction program known as Prevent Alcohol and Risk-Related Trauma in Youth (P.A.R.T.Y.) is effective in reducing the prevalence of risky drinking at 12 months' post-intervention in a sample of Royal Australian Navy (RAN) trainees.

METHODS

A non-blinded randomized controlled trial of 952 RAN trainees comparing two forms of P.A.R.T.Y. plus RAN annual alcohol and other drug awareness training with annual alcohol and other drugs awareness training only (Control). Participants were screened at baseline and at 12-month follow-up using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Participants were randomized to one of three arms: (1) in-hospital P.A.R.T.Y program, (2) on-base P.A.R.T.Y. program, or (3) control.The primary outcome measure was the percentage of participants reporting an AUDIT score of 8 or above at 12 months in each group. A secondary outcome considered was reports of alcohol-related incidents in the 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the risk of reporting an AUDIT score of 8 or above in either the in-hospital (Relative Risk (RR) 0.96, 95% CI: 0.75-1.23; P = .75) or on-base (RR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.89-1.369; P = 0.35) intervention groups, compared to the control group. Compared to the on-base group, there was no difference in the risk of reporting an AUDIT score of 8 or above in the in-hospital group (RR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.90-1.48; P = .24). The rate of reporting an alcohol-related incident was not different for the in-hospital (Hazard Ratio (HR) 0.60, 95% CI: 0.27-1.33; P = .21) or on-base (HR 0.50, 95% CI: 0.21-1.16; P = .11) intervention groups when compared to the control group.

CONCLUSION

Participation in either an on-base or an in-hospital P.A.R.T.Y. program did not affect the proportion of naval trainee participants screening positive for risky drinking on the AUDIT.