The families and friends of heavy drinkers: Caught in the cross-fire of policy change?

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Research highlights the need to better understand the impact of alcohol-related harm on families and communities. Scottish policy initiatives to reduce alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harm include the planned introduction of a minimum unit price for alcohol. We aimed to explore existing and proposed changes in alcohol policy, from the standpoint of heavy drinkers, through accounts of their involvement and repercussions for family and friends. DESIGN AND METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 20 heavy drinkers, recruited from hospital alcohol treatment centres in Scotland's two largest cities. Participants were part of a larger longitudinal mixed methods study. Interviews explored experiences of alcohol-related harm and the impact, or potential impact, of alcohol policy changes on drinking patterns, risk-taking, consumption and wellbeing. Data coded for 'family and friends' were thematically analysed using a constant comparison method. RESULTS: Family and friends were portrayed as important for aiding moderation and abstinence, but more often for sustaining continued heavy drinking. Heavy drinkers with complex needs and those living in deprived communities suggested that increased alcohol prices could exacerbate the detrimental effect on their health and social circumstances, and that of their family, should their consumption remain excessive. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Population level policy initiatives to reduce alcohol consumption, such as minimum unit pricing, will impact on the families and social networks of heavy drinkers in addition to the drinker. The most vulnerable may be affected disproportionately. Alcohol policy changes and evaluations need to consider consequences for drinkers, families and communities. [O'May F, Whittaker A, Black H, Gill J. The families and friends of heavy drinkers: Caught in the cross-fire of policy change?

Supporting the case for “progressive universalism” in health visiting: Scottish mothers and health visitors’ perspectives on targeting and rationing health visiting services, with a focus on the Lothian Child Concern Model.

Aims. To explore parents and professionals’ experience of family assessment in health visiting (public health nursing), with a focus on the Lothian Child Concern Model (LCCM). Background. Health visitors (HVs) currently assess families as requiring core, additional or intensive support, and offer support at a corresponding level. The majority of families are assessed as core and receive no pro-active support beyond the early days. Previous assessment tools, consisting of checklists, have been criticised as being ineffective in identifying a range of health needs and unacceptable to parents and HVs. The LCCM model was developed and introduced in the study area to promote a partnership approach with parents and assess strengths as well as difficulties in parents’ capacity to care for their child. Methods. Qualitative methods were used. Ten mothers and twelve HVs took part in individual semi-structured interviews. Results. Most mothers were aware of the assessment process but some felt that they were not involved in the decision making process. Explaining the assessment process to parents is problematic and not all HVs do so. The assessment process was stressful for some mothers. HVs find the model useful for structuring and documenting the assessment process. Many believe that most families benefit from some support, using public health approaches. Families are often assessed as core because there are insufficient resources to support all those who meet the criteria of the additional category, and managers assess caseloads in terms of families with child protection concerns. Conclusions. The study findings support the concept of “progressive universalism” which provides a continuum of intensity of support to families, depending on need. Mothers would like better partnership working with HVs. Relevance to clinical practice. The study endorses proposed policy changes to re-establish the public health role of HVs and to lower the threshold for families to qualify for support.