Overserving and crowding of intoxicated persons in bars and pubs often lead to nuisance, harassment, and violence on and around the premises (Graham & Homel, 2008). Interventions that effectively reduce overserving and related harms are therefore much warranted, but—to this end—server training programs, often termed responsible beverage service (RBS), have per se shown little impact on such outcomes (Rossow & Buvik, 2017; Toomey et al., 2017). In this issue, Woodall and co-workers (2018) present an evaluation study of a 4-hour web-based server-training program, WayToServe (WTS) that not only seems to do somewhat better than another (live) program, but apparently obtains a huge increase in refusal rates to pseudo-intoxicated patrons. Such results are indeed promising, particularly when assuming that a web-based program would be far more cost-effective and easier to implement and would lower the threshold for server participation. Unfortunately, there are some issues to be considered when assessing the study findings, suggesting less reason for enthusiasm.
First, pseudo-patron assessments were conducted in early evenings, mostly (70%) in restaurants, and probably also during weekdays. This suggests that the time and venues chosen for pseudo-patron assessments are likely characterized by little or no intoxication among the other customers, acceptable lighting, and low noise level. Under such conditions, it seems plausible that acquired skills from a program can be useful for identifying and handling single cases of intoxicated patrons. However, overserving typically occurs under quite different conditions; in the late hours on weekends and in venues with poor lighting and high noise level, such as bars and nightclubs (Buvik & Rossow, 2015; Hughes et al., 2014; Wallin et al., 2005; Warpenius et al., 2010). Thus, the purchase attempts in Woodall and co-workers’ study were conducted under conditions of little relevance to the main problem of overserving, and this design flaw hampers assessment of intervention effectiveness, and it is questionable whether the observed findings can be replicated in more relevant contexts.
Second, the most remarkable finding in Woodall et al.’s study is actually not that WTS seemed to do a little better than the control RBS (Usual and Customary training), but that the control RBS also apparently succeeded in increasing refusal rates to a much larger extent than other RBS programs. Although both programs in Woodall et al.’s study had a baseline refusal rate at around 33% and obtained refusal rates close to 70% after implementation, other programs have generally obtained much lower refusal rates, most often in the range from 20% to 40% after program implementation (Ker & Chinnock, 2008; McKnight, 1991; Rossow & Baklien, 2010; Toomey et al., 2008, 2016, 2017). The Usual and Customary training is described as the state-mandated NewMAST training curriculum, which was implemented in 2004 (Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse & Addictions [CASAA], 2018). At that time, mandatory server training had already been in effect in New Mexico for 10 years. So, what was it that led to the exceptional success in avoiding overserving in both NewMAST and WTS? This is not discussed in the article, but we will offer some possible explanations.
As noted above, the experimental conditions may have favored any kind of RBS program. Another possible explanation could be that the introduction of the two programs concurred with another intervention, as for example strengthened enforcement of alcohol laws. Currently, overserving and serving to minors in New Mexico may result in both fees and penalties such as withdrawal of the license.1 If strengthened law enforcement came into effect at the same time as the server interventions, this intervention—per se or in combination with the server training programs—may explain the substantial increase in refusal rates. Several previous studies have demonstrated how multi-component programs, including law enforcement strategies, are more effective in reducing overserving than server training only (Rossow & Buvik, 2017).
Third, it is noteworthy that some of the authors have personal interests in finding favorable effects of the program, both as developers of WTS and as shareholders in the company that profits from sales of the program. There is a possibility that such interests may have had an impact on study design and presentation and interpretation of study findings, which is a study limitation, although not acknowledged in the discussion of study findings. Ideally, such evaluation studies should be conducted by researchers with no conflict of interest.
Finally, it is not stated when the WTS trial was conducted, but it was likely also in 2004. The considerable time lag (apparently more than 12 years) from study completion to publication is striking. Why did it take so long to publish the results? WTS became commercially available to servers statewide in 2011 (Woodall et al., 2018), and by 2014, more than 19,000 alcohol servers and sellers in New Mexico had already been trained in WTS (CASAA, 2018). Particularly, when considering this large-scale implementation of the program over a number of years, the long delay in getting the trial outcome published is puzzling.
| Buvik, K., & Rossow, I. (2015). Factors associated with over-serving at drinking establishments. Addiction, 110, 602–609. doi:10.1111/add.12843 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar | |
| Center on Alcoholism, Substance Abuse & Addictions (CASAA). (2018). CASAA and prevention: 25 years of collaboration and engagement. Retrieved from https://casaa.unm.edu/download/25th/25thWoodall.pdf Google Scholar | |
| Graham, K., & Homel, R. (2008). Raising the bar: Preventing aggression in and around bars, pubs and clubs. Cullompton, England: Willan. Google Scholar | |
| Hughes, K., Bellis, M. A., Leckenby, N., Quigg, Z., Hardcastle, K., Sharples, O., & Llewellyn, D. J. (2014). Does legislation to prevent alcohol sales to drunk individuals work? Measuring the propensity for night-time sales to drunks in a UK city. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 68, 453–456. doi:10.1136/jech-2013-203287 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar | |
| Ker, K., & Chinnock, P. (2008). Interventions in the alcohol server setting for preventing injuries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, Article No. CD005244. Crossref, Google Scholar | |
| McKnight, A. J. (1991). Factors influencing the effectiveness of serverintervention education. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 52, 389–397. doi:10.15288/jsa.1991.52.389 Link, Google Scholar | |
| Rossow, I., & Baklien, B. (2010). Effectiveness of responsible beverage service: The Norwegian experiences. Contemporary Drug Problems, 37, 91–107. doi:10.1177/009145091003700105 Crossref, Google Scholar | |
| Rossow, I., & Buvik, K. (2017). Interventions to prevent intoxication and related harm in night-life settings. What do we know about effectiveness and barriers to law enforcement and program implementation? In N. Giesbrecht & L. Bosma (Eds.), Preventing alcohol-related problems: Evidence and community-based initiatives (pp. 309–324). London, England: APHA Press. Google Scholar | |
| Toomey, T. L., Erickson, D. J., Lenk, K. M., Kilian, G. R., Perry, C. L., & Wagenaar, A. C. (2008). A randomized trial to evaluate a management training program to prevent illegal alcohol sales. Addiction, 103, 405–413, discussion 414–415. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2007.02077.x Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar | |
| Toomey, T. L., Lenk, K. M., Nederhoff, D. M., Nelson, T. F., Ecklund, A. M., Horvath, K. J., & Erickson, D. J. (2016). Can obviously intoxicated patrons still easily buy alcohol at on-premise establishments? Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 40, 616–622. doi:10.1111/acer.12985 Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar | |
| Toomey, T. L., Lenk, K. M., Erickson, D. J., Horvath, K. J., Ecklund, A. M., Nederhoff, D. M., . . . Nelson, T. F. (2017). Effects of a hybrid online and in-person training program designed to reduce alcohol sales to obviously intoxicated patrons. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 78, 268–275. doi:10.15288/jsad.2017.78.268 Link, Google Scholar | |
| Wallin, E., Gripenberg, J., & Andréasson, S. (2005). Overserving at licensed premises in Stockholm: Effects of a community action program. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 66, 806–814. doi:10.15288/jsa.2005.66.806 Link, Google Scholar | |
| Warpenius, K., Holmila, M., & Mustonen, H. (2010). Effects of a community intervention to reduce the serving of alcohol to intoxicated patrons. Addiction, 105, 1032–1040. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02873.x Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar | |
| Woodall, W. G., Starling, R., Saltz, R. F., Buller, D. B., & Stanghetta, P. (2018). Results of a randomized trial of web-based retail onsite responsible beverage service training: WayToServe. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 79, 672–679 doi:10.15288/jsad.2018.79.672 Link, Google Scholar |
