Table 2 |
||
|
Frequencies of Responses to Questions on Moderate Drinking Goals |
||
| Item |
N |
% |
|
|
||
| Agencies currently offering moderate drinking goals (n = 40 agencies) |
38 |
95.0 |
| Agencies that considered offering moderate drinking goals |
1 |
2.5 |
|
|
||
| Considered it, but decided against it because (n = 2 respondents) |
||
| staff resistance |
1 |
50.0 |
| Other |
1 |
50.0 |
|
|
||
| For agencies not offering moderate drinking goals (n = 5 respondents) |
||
| Intra-agency obstacles |
||
| not appropriate for their clients |
2 |
40.0 |
| staff resistance |
1 |
20.0 |
| Other |
1 |
20.0 |
| Extra-agency obstacles |
||
| community resistance/opposition |
1 |
20.0 |
| Other |
1 |
20.0 |
| None |
1 |
20.0 |
| Expected benefits of offering moderate drinking goals |
||
| some clients find it more appealing than abstinence goals |
1 |
20.0 |
| None |
1 |
20.0 |
|
|
||
| For agencies that offer moderate drinking goals (n = 62 respondents) |
||
| Reasons for introducing it |
||
| its appropriate for some clients |
24 |
38.7 |
| abstinence is an unrealistic goal for some clients |
11 |
17.7 |
| client demand |
25 |
40.3 |
| empirical evidence supports it |
9 |
14.5 |
| political pressure from outside the agency |
1 |
1.8 |
| harm reduction |
7 |
11.3 |
| Don't know |
4 |
6.5 |
| Other |
30 |
48.4 |
| Resistance encountered |
||
| a) none |
27 |
43.5 |
| b) from the staff |
7 |
11.3 |
| c) from the Board |
5 |
8.1 |
| d) from the general community |
11 |
17.7 |
| e) from the AA community |
13 |
21.0 |
| f) from other addiction agencies |
13 |
21.0 |
| g) don't know |
1 |
1.6 |
| h) other |
6 |
9.7 |
| How was it dealt with? (n = 35) |
||
| a) ignored it |
3 |
8.6 |
| b) gave people time to accept it |
7 |
20.0 |
| c) through education/information |
20 |
57.1 |
| d) ran an active PR campaign |
1 |
2.9 |
| e) don't know |
1 |
2.9 |
| f) other |
13 |
37.1 |
|
|
||
|
Hobden and Cunningham Harm Reduction Journal 2006 3:35 doi:10.1186/1477-7517-3-35 |
||
