Skip to main content

Table 3 Characteristics of rural community respondents that predict their alcohol-intervention preferences

From: An empirical approach to selecting community-based alcohol interventions: combining research evidence, rural community views and professional opinion

Characteristicsa Intervention type
Coefficient (robust standard error)
  School Promote safer drinking Community Police GP Hospital/ED Pharmacists Workplace
Constant 25.5* (5.21) 1.45 (4.65) 7.98 (5.20) 18.7* (5.83) 7.58 (3.61) 12.7* (3.75) 6.80 (3.35) 2.39 (3.86)
High frequency drinking 0.02 (0.07) 0.12 (0.06) -0.12 (0.07) -0.25* (0.07) -0.01 (0.05) 0.16* (0.05) -0.03 (0.04) 0.03 (0.05)
Family/friend drinks too much -0.34 (0.76) -0.16 (0.68) 2.28* (0.76) -1.02 (0.86) -0.13 (0.53) -0.48 (0.56) 0.26 (0.56) 0.55 (0.57)
Female 2.43 (1.22) -2.27 (1.08) 2.17 (1.22) 1.15 (0.86) -0.17 (0.85) 2.32* (0.89) 0.12 (0.80) -1.31 (0.91)
Age 0.14* (0.05) -0.01 (0.05) -0.10 (0.05) -0.07 (0.06) -0.09 (0.04) -0.21* (0.04) -0.19* (0.03) -0.07 (0.04)
Education level -0.52 (0.24) 0.86* (0.21) 0.14 (0.24) -0.15 (0.27) -0.29 (0.17) -0.28 (0.17) -0.30 (0.16) -0.24 (0.18)
Gross annual household income > $78,000 pa 6.90* (2.28) 1.02 (2.03) -2.08 (2.29) -2.74 (2.56) -3.48 (1.58) -3.12(1.67) -4.03* (1.50) -4.12(1.71)
Prefer not to say income 3.45 (2.47) 0.30 (2.20) -1.09 (2.47) -0.76 (2.76) -5.11* (1.72) -1.77 (1.79) -(1.72) (1.60) -1.20 (1.82)
Communityb 10.5 8.68 11.0 15.1* 6.33 11.2* 8.32 7.92
  1. *Statistically significant where p ≤ 0.01
  2. a Neither high quantity drinking nor number of persons in the household aged14 years were statistically significant predictors of intervention preference
  3. b Community is the maximum difference in average allocation preference between all twenty communities - significance is based on a joint test for significance of all community dummy variables
\