Professional Development to Improve Responsible Beverage Service Training: Formative Research Results and Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improved interventions are needed to reduce the rate of driving while intoxicated. Responsible beverage service (RBS) training has reduced service to intoxicated patrons in licensed premises in several studies. Its efficacy might be improved by increasing the proper application and continued use of RBS with a professional development program in the 3 to 5 years between the required RBS retraining. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop and evaluate a professional development component for an RBS training that aims to improve the effectiveness of the web-based training alone. METHODS: In a 2-phase project, we are creating a professional development component for alcohol servers after completing an RBS training. The first phase involved formative research on the feasibility, acceptability, and potential effectiveness of components. Semistructured interviews with owners and managers of licensed establishments and focus groups and a survey with alcohol servers in New Mexico and Washington State examined support for RBS and the need for ongoing professional development to support RBS. A prototype of a professional development component, WayToServe Plus, was produced for delivery in social media posts on advanced RBS skills, support from experienced servers, professionalism, and basic management training. The prototype was evaluated in a usability survey and a field pilot study with alcohol servers in California, New Mexico, and Washington State. The second phase of the project will include full production of the professional development component. It will be delivered in Facebook private groups over 12 months and evaluated with a sample of licensed premises (ie, bars and restaurants) in California, New Mexico, and Washington State (n=180) in a 2-group randomized field trial (WayToServe training only vs WayToServe training and WayToServe Plus). Licensed establishments will be assessed for refusal of sales to apparently intoxicated pseudopatrons at baseline and 12 months after the intervention commences. RESULTS: Although owners and managers (n=10) and alcohol servers (n=43) were favorable toward RBS, they endorsed the need for ongoing support for RBS for servers and identified topics of interest. A prototype with 50 posts was successfully created. Servers felt that it was highly usable and appropriate for themselves and the premises in the usability survey (n=20) and field pilot test (n=110), with 85% (17/20) and 78% (46/59), respectively, saying they would use it. Servers receiving the professional development component had higher self-efficacy (d=0.30) and response efficacy (d=0.38) for RBS compared with untreated controls. CONCLUSIONS: Owners, managers, and servers believed that an ongoing professional development component on RBS would benefit servers and licensed premises. Servers were interested in using such a program, a large majority engaged with the prototype, and servers receiving it improved on theoretic mediators of RBS. Thus, the professional development component may improve RBS training. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05779774; http://tinyurl.com/4mw6d2vk. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/49680.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.076 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.058 | 0.012 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".