Alcohol management plans in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) Australian communities in Queensland: community residents have experienced favourable impacts but also suffered unfavourable ones.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, 'Alcohol Management Plans' (AMPs) provide the policy infrastructure for State and Commonwealth Governments to address problematic alcohol use among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. We report community residents' experiences of AMPs in 10 of Queensland's 15 remote Indigenous communities. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used a two-stage sampling strategy: N = 1211; 588 (48%) males, 623 (52%) females aged ≥18 years in 10 communities. Seven propositions about 'favourable' impacts and seven about 'unfavourable' impacts were developed from semi-structured interviews. For each proposition, one-sample tests of proportions examined participant agreement and multivariable binary logistic regressions assessed influences of gender, age (18-24, 25-44, 45-64, ≥65 years), residence (≥6 years), current drinking and Indigenous status. Confirmatory factor analyses estimated scale reliability (ρ), item loadings and covariances. RESULTS: Slim majorities agreed that: AMPs reduced violence (53%, p = 0.024); community a better place to live (54%, 0.012); and children were safer (56%, p < 0.001). More agreed that: school attendance improved (66%, p < 0.001); and awareness of alcohol's harms increased (71%, p < 0.001). Participants were equivocal about improved personal safety (53%, p = 0.097) and reduced violence against women (49%, p = 0.362). The seven 'favourable' items reliably summarized participants' experiences of reduced violence and improved community amenity (ρ = 0.90). Stronger agreement was found for six 'unfavourable' items: alcohol availability not reduced (58%, p < 0.001); drinking not reduced (56%, p < 0.001)); cannabis use increased (69%, p < 0.001); more binge drinking (73%, p < 0.001); discrimination experienced (77%, p < 0.001); increased fines, convictions and criminal records for breaching restrictions (90%, p < 0.001). Participants were equivocal (51% agreed, p = 0.365) that police could enforce restrictions effectively. 'Unfavourable' items were not reliably reflected in one group (ρ = 0.48) but in: i) alcohol availability and consumption not reduced and ii) criminalization and discrimination. In logistic regressions, longer-term (≥ 6 years) residents more likely agreed that violence against women had reduced and that personal safety had improved but also that criminalization and binge drinking had increased. Younger people disagreed that their community was a better place to live and strongly agreed about discrimination. Current drinkers' views differed little from the sample overall. CONCLUSIONS: The present Government review provides an opportunity to reinforce 'favourable' outcomes while targeting: illicit alcohol, treatment and diversion services and reconciliation of criminalization and discrimination issues.

Study Protocol--Alcohol Management Plans (AMPs) in remote indigenous communities in Queensland: their impacts on injury, violence, health and social indicators and their cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: In 2002/03 the Queensland Government responded to high rates of alcohol-related harm in discrete Indigenous communities by implementing alcohol management plans (AMPs), designed to include supply and harm reduction and treatment measures. Tighter alcohol supply and carriage restrictions followed in 2008 following indications of reductions in violence and injury. Despite the plans being in place for over a decade, no comprehensive independent review has assessed to what level the designed aims were achieved and what effect the plans have had on Indigenous community residents and service providers. This study will describe the long-term impacts on important health, economic and social outcomes of Queensland's AMPs. METHODS/DESIGN: The project has two main studies, 1) outcome evaluation using de-identified epidemiological data on injury, violence and other health and social indicators for across Queensland, including de-identified databases compiled from relevant routinely-available administrative data sets, and 2) a process evaluation to map the nature, timing and content of intervention components targeting alcohol. Process evaluation will also be used to assess the fidelity with which the designed intervention components have been implemented, their uptake and community responses to them and their perceived impacts on alcohol supply and consumption, injury, violence and community health. Interviews and focus groups with Indigenous residents and service providers will be used. The study will be conducted in all 24 of Queensland's Indigenous communities affected by alcohol management plans. DISCUSSION: This evaluation will report on the impacts of the original aims for AMPs, what impact they have had on Indigenous residents and service providers. A central outcome will be the establishment of relevant databases describing the parameters of the changes seen. This will permit comprehensive and rigorous surveillance systems to be put in place and provided to communities empowering them with the best credible evidence to judge future policy and program requirements for themselves. The project will inform impending alcohol policy and program adjustments in Queensland and other Australian jurisdictions.The project has been approved by the James Cook University Human Research Ethics Committee (approval number H4967 & H5241).

Translation of tobacco policy into practice in disadvantaged and marginalized subpopulations: a study of challenges and opportunities in remote Australian Indigenous communities.

BACKGROUND: In Australia generally, smoking prevalence more than halved after 1980 and recently commenced to decline among Australia's disadvantaged Indigenous peoples. However, in some remote Indigenous Australian communities in the Northern Territory (NT), extremely high rates of up to 83% have not changed over the past 25 years. The World Health Organisation has called for public health and political leadership to address a global tobacco epidemic. For Indigenous Australians, unprecedented policies aim to overcome disadvantage and close the 'health gap' with reducing tobacco use the top priority. This study identifies challenges and opportunities to implementing these important new tobacco initiatives in remote Indigenous communities. METHODS: With little empirical evidence available, we interviewed 82 key stakeholders across the NT representing operational- and management-level service providers, local Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants to identify challenges and opportunities for translating new policies into successful tobacco interventions. Data were analysed using qualitative approaches to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: The 20 emergent themes were classified using counts of occasions each theme occurred in the transcribed data as challenge or opportunity. The 'smoke-free policies' theme occurred most frequently as opportunity but infrequently as challenge while 'health workforce capacity' occurred most frequently as challenge but less frequently as opportunity, suggesting that policy implementation is constrained by lack of a skilled workforce. 'Smoking cessation support' occurred frequently as opportunity but also frequently as challenge suggesting that support for individuals requires additional input and attention. CONCLUSIONS: These results from interviews with local and operational-level participants indicate that current tobacco policies in Australia targeting Indigenous smoking are sound and comprehensive. However, for remote Indigenous Australian communities, local and operational-level participants' views point to an 'implementation gap'. Their views should be heard because they are in a position to provide practical recommendations for effective policy implementation faithful to its design, thereby translating sound policy into meaningful action. Some recommendations may also find a place in culturally diverse low- and middle-income countries. Key words: tobacco policy implementation, challenges, opportunities, remote Indigenous Australian communities.

Using breath carbon monoxide to validate self-reported tobacco smoking in remote Australian Indigenous communities.

BACKGROUND: This paper examines the specificity and sensitivity of a breath carbon monoxide (BCO) test and optimum BCO cutoff level for validating self-reported tobacco smoking in Indigenous Australians in Arnhem Land, Northern Territory (NT). METHODS: In a sample of 400 people (>/=16 years) interviewed about tobacco use in three communities, both self-reported smoking and BCO data were recorded for 309 study participants. Of these, 249 reported smoking tobacco within the preceding 24 hours, and 60 reported they had never smoked or had not smoked tobacco for >/=6 months. The sample was opportunistically recruited using quotas to reflect age and gender balances in the communities where the combined Indigenous populations comprised 1,104 males and 1,215 females (>/=16 years). Local Indigenous research workers assisted researchers in interviewing participants and facilitating BCO tests using a portable hand-held analyzer. RESULTS: A BCO cutoff of >/=7 parts per million (ppm) provided good agreement between self-report and BCO (96.0% sensitivity, 93.3% specificity). An alternative cutoff of >/=5 ppm increased sensitivity from 96.0% to 99.6% with no change in specificity (93.3%). With data for two self-reported nonsmokers who also reported that they smoked cannabis removed from the analysis, specificity increased to 96.6%. CONCLUSION: In these disadvantaged Indigenous populations, where data describing smoking are few, testing for BCO provides a practical, noninvasive, and immediate method to validate self-reported smoking. In further studies of tobacco smoking in these populations, cannabis use should be considered where self-reported nonsmokers show high BCO.

Unintended impacts of alcohol restrictions on alcohol and other drug use in Indigenous communities in Queensland (Australia).

BACKGROUND: 'Alcohol Management Plans' (AMPs) with a focus on alcohol restrictions were implemented in 19 discrete Indigenous communities, in 15 Local Government Areas, by the Queensland Government from 2002. Community residents' perceptions and experiences of the impacts of AMPs on local alcohol and drug use are documented. METHODS: A cross-sectional study used quantitative and qualitative survey data collected during 2014-2015 in 10 affected communities. Five had some alcohol available. Five had total prohibition. Participant responses were assessed and compared by prohibition status. RESULTS: Overall, less than 50% of 1098 participants agreed that: i) the restrictions had reduced alcohol availability in their community and ii) that people were drinking less. Nearly three quarters agreed that binge-drinking had increased, attributed to increased availability of illicit alcohol. There were no statistically significant differences between communities with prohibition and those with some access to alcohol. Participants agreed overall that cannabis use had increased but were more equivocal that new drugs were being used. These views were less frequently reported in prohibition communities. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to what was intended, Queensland's alcohol restrictions in Indigenous communities were viewed by community residents as not significantly reducing the availability and use of alcohol. Furthermore, this was compounded by perceived increases in binge drinking and cannabis use; also unintended. There is a need to strengthen resolve at all levels to reduce the supply of illicit alcohol in restricted areas.

Alcohol control policies in Indigenous communities: A qualitative study of the perceptions of their effectiveness among service providers, stakeholders and community leaders in Queensland (Australia).

BACKGROUND: Favourable impacts are reported from complex alcohol control strategies, known as 'Alcohol Management Plans' (AMPs) implemented 14 years ago in 19 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) communities in Queensland (Australia). However, it is not clear that all communities benefited and that positive impacts were sustained. Service providers, key stakeholders and community leaders provided insights about issues and impacts. METHODS: Participants (N=382) were recruited from knowledgeable and experienced persons using agency lists and by recommendation across sectors which have a mandate for managing alcohol-related issues and consequences of AMP policies in communities. In semi-structured interviews, participants (51% Indigenous, 55% male and comprised of at least one-third local community residents) were asked whether they believed alcohol controls had been effective and to describe any favourable and unfavourable outcomes experienced or perceived. Inductive techniques were used for thematic analysis of the content of transcribed recorded interviews. Comments reflecting themes were assessed across service sectors, by gender, Indigenous status and remoteness. RESULTS: Participants attributed reduced violence and improved community amenity to AMPs, particularly for 'very remote' communities. Participants' information suggests that these important achievements happened abruptly but may have become undermined over time by: the availability of illicit alcohol and an urgency to consume it; migration to larger centres to seek alcohol; criminalization; substitution of illicit drugs for alcohol; changed drinking behaviours and discrimination. Most issues were more frequently linked with 'very remote' communities. CONCLUSION: Alcohol restrictions in Queensland's Indigenous communities may have brought favourable changes, a significant achievement after a long period of poorly regulated alcohol availability from the 1980s up to 2002. Subsequently, over the past decade, an urgency to access and consume illicit alcohol appears to have emerged. It is not clear that relaxing restrictions would reverse the harmful impacts of AMPs without significant demand reduction, treatment and diversion efforts.

Aboriginal people in remote communities in Arnhem Land (Northern Territory) restrict their smoking in some environments: Implications for developing and implementing interventions to reduce exposure to environmental tobacco smoke.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: In Arnhem Land's remote Aboriginal communities [Northern Territory], very high smoking rates and overcrowding mean high exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke. This study compared smokers who restrict their smoking in these environments with those who do not. DESIGN AND METHODS: In 2008-2009, 258 smokers (137 males and 121 females) aged ≥ 16 years, provided information permitting categorisation of those who 'RESTRICT' their smoking in the house, car or workplace from those who do 'NOT RESTRICT'. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions compared 'RESTRICT' and 'NOT RESTRICT' groups by gender, age group, daily use, tobacco consumption, time-to-first-cigarette and quit intentions. Those in the 'RESTRICT' group explained their motivations, summarised using qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: Men were almost twice as likely to 'NOT RESTRICT' their smoking (odds ratio = 1.88, 95% confidence interval = 1.14-3.08, P = 0.013). Time-to-first-cigarette was the strongest predictor to 'NOT RESTRICT' in women (odds ratio = 3.48, 95% confidence interval = 1.44-8.41, P = 0.006) with daily consumption the strongest predictor in men (odds ratio = 3.15, 95% confidence interval = 1.39-7.18, P = 0.006). Men and women shared similar motivations for restricting smoking. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Smoke-free homes and workplaces are important opportunities to reduce exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in remote Indigenous communities.

Can we measure daily tobacco consumption in remote indigenous communities? Comparing self-reported tobacco consumption with community-level estimates in an Arnhem Land study.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: In remote Indigenous Australian communities measuring individual tobacco use can be confounded by cultural expectations, including sharing. We compared self-reported tobacco consumption with community-level estimates in Arnhem Land (Northern Territory). DESIGN AND METHODS: In a cross-sectional survey in three communities (population 2319 Indigenous residents, aged ≥16 years), 400 Indigenous residents were interviewed (206 men, 194 women). Eight community stores provided information about tobacco sold during the survey. To gauge the impact of 255 non-Indigenous residents on tobacco turnover, 10 were interviewed (five men, five women). Breath carbon monoxide levels confirmed self-reported smoking. Self-reported number of cigarettes smoked per day was compared with daily tobacco consumption per user estimated using amounts of tobacco sold during 12 months before the survey (2007-2008). 'Lighter smokers' (<10 cigarettes per day) and 'heavier smokers' (≥10 cigarettes per day) in men and women were compared. RESULTS: Of 400 Indigenous study participants, 305 (76%) used tobacco; four chewed tobacco. Of 301 Indigenous smokers, 177 (58%) provided self-reported consumption information; a median of 11-11.5 cigarettes per day in men and 5.5-10 cigarettes per day in women. Men were three times (odds ratio=2.9) more likely to be 'heavier smokers'. Store turnover data indicated that Indigenous tobacco users consumed the equivalent of 9.2-13.1 cigarettes per day; very similar to self-reported levels. Sixty per cent (=6/10) of non-Indigenous residents interviewed were smokers, but with little impact on tobacco turnover overall (2-6%). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Smoking levels reported by Indigenous Australians in this study, when sharing tobacco was considered, closely reflected quantities of tobacco sold in community stores.