Skip to main content

Table 2 Quantitative outcomes on alcohol consumption, health outcomes, housing retention, and service utilization

From: Scoping review of managed alcohol programs

Author, Year

Title

Location or country

Type of intervention

Sample size

Alcohol consumption

Health outcomes (acute and chronic)

Housing retention

Utilization of services

Other outcomes

Podymow, T.; Turnbull, J.; Coyle, D.; Yetisir, E.; Wells, G. (2006)

Shelter-based managed alcohol administration to chronically homeless people addicted to alcohol

Canada

Pre–post within subject

17 participants; 1 program

+

+

+

+Hygiene, nutrition + medication compliance

Stockwell, T; Pauly, B; Chow, C; Vallance, K; Perkin, K (2013)

Evaluation of a managed alcohol program in Vancouver, BC

Early findings and reflections on alcohol harm reduction

Canada

Mixed-methods pilot study with pre–post comparison within subject

7 participants; 1 program

Beverage alcohol

 + NBA

Alcohol-related harms

 − Self-rated physical health

 − LFTs

+

+ Feasibility/acceptability

Evans, J.; Semogas, D.; Smalley, J. G.; Lohfeld, L. (2015)

“This place has given me a reason to care”: Understanding “managed alcohol programs” as enabling places in Canada

Canada

Qualitative study with interviews and focus groups

10 participants; 1 program

+

NR

+

NR 

+ Interpersonal connections

+ Attention to physical health

+ Sense of self management, control of alcohol consumption

Hammond, K, Lynda G, Pauly, B (2016)

A cost–benefit analysis of a Canadian managed alcohol program

Canada

Cost–benefit analysis with pre–post within-subject utilization comparison, and cost–benefit analysis with intervention (same as pre–post subjects) compared to control subjects

18 MAP participants; 20 Control; 1 program

NR

NR

NR

+

+ Cost–benefit

Pauly, B; Gray, E; Perkin, K; Chow, C; Vallance, K; Krysowaty, B; Stockwell, T (2016)

Finding safety: a pilot study of managed alcohol program participants’ perceptions of housing and quality of life

Canada

Mixed-methods longitudinal pilot study with pre–post comparison within subject, and comparison with treatment-as-usual controls. In-depth interviews with MAP participants and staff

18 MAP participants; 20 Control; 1 program. Note 7 interviewees total for qualitative interviews

NR

NR

+

NR

+ Feasibility/Acceptability

Vallance, K.; Stockwell, T.; Pauly, B.; Chow, C.; Gray, E.; Krysowaty, B.; Perkin, K.; Zhao, J. (2016)

Do managed alcohol programs change patterns of alcohol consumption and reduce related harm? A pilot study

Canada

Mixed-methods longitudinal pilot study with pre–post comparison within subject, and comparison with treatment-as-usual controls. In-depth interviews with MAP participants and staff

18 MAP participants; 20 Control; 1 program

Beverage alcohol

 + NBA

+

NR

+

 

Erickson, R. A.; Stockwell, T.; Pauly, B. B.; Chow, C.; Roemer, A.; Zhao, J.; Vallance, K.; Wettlaufer, A. (2018)

How do people with homelessness and alcohol dependence cope when alcohol is unaffordable? A comparison of residents of Canadian managed alcohol programs and locally recruited controls

Canada

Cross-sectional comparisons of data on self-reported coping strategies collected from interviews

175 MAP participants; 189 Control; 6 MAP programs

Beverage alcohol

 + NBA

NR

NR

NR

+ Coping strategies when alcohol is unaffordable

Stockwell, T.; Pauly, B. B.; Chow, C.; Erickson, R. A.; Krysowaty, B.; Roemer, A.; Vallance, K.; Wettlaufer, A.; Zhao, J. (2018)

Does managing the consumption of people with severe alcohol dependence reduce harm? A comparison of participants in six Canadian managed alcohol programs with locally recruited controls

Canada

Comparison sample, cross-sectional survey design using survey data from participants of 6 residential MAPs in 5 cities

175 MAP participants; 189 Control; 6 MAP programs

Beverage alcohol

 + NBA **only longer-term MAPs

+ Acute

NR

NR

 

Evans, J. (2012)

Supportive measures, enabling restraint: governing homeless “street drinkers” in Hamilton, Canada 

Canada 

In-depth interviews, observation of program operations, and document review  

24 MAP participants; 2 MAP staff; 1 MAP program

NR

+

+

NR

+ Relationship to alcohol 

Wettlaufer, A., Pauly, B., Brown, M., Chow, C., Vallance, K., Kauppi, C., Larocque, C., Stockwell, T., & Zhao, J. (2017)

Toward alcohol harm reduction: results from an evaluation of a Canadian managed alcohol program

Canada

Small-scale mixed-methods evaluation

One MAP site. 8 MAP participants; 16 Controls; 8 MAP staff

+ Beverage alcohol

− NBA

NR

NR

− Safety (within MAP) + Well-being

Stockwell, T., Zhao, J. Pauly, B., Chow, C., Vallance, K. Wettlaufer, A., Saunders, J.B., and Chick, J. (2021)

Trajectories of Alcohol Use and Related Harms for Managed Alcohol Program Participants over 12 months compared with local controls: a quasi-experimental study

Canada

Mixed-methods longitudinal pilot study with pre–post comparison within subject, and comparison with treatment-as-usual controls

MAP participants n = 59; Controls n = 116

+ Beverage alcohol

+ NBA

Alcohol-related harms

LFTs

NR

NR

More stringent rules for outside drinking = + outcomes for MAP participants

Less stringent rules for outside drinking = MAP participants similar to controls for consumption, harms

Pauly, B; King, V.; Smith, A.; Tranquilli-Doherty, S.; Wishart, M.; Vallance, K.; Stockwell, T.; Sutherland, C. (2020)

Breaking the cycle of survival drinking: insights from a non-residential, peer-initiated and peer-run managed alcohol program

Canada

Qualitative–semi-structured in-depth interviews with SEMAP participants recruited through purposive sampling

n = 14 (all eligible persons identified participated)

+ NBA

+ Alcohol-related harms

NR

NR

 
  1. + Significantly greater/improved in the intervention group (or post-intervention) = in favor of the intervention
  2. ↔No significant difference in pre- and post-intervention
  3. −No statistical significance reported
  4. ?Significantly poorer in the intervention group (or post-intervention) = not in favor of the intervention
  5. NR outcome not reported