↓ Skip to main content

The impact of subsidized low aromatic fuel (LAF) on petrol (gasoline) sniffing in remote Australian indigenous communities

Overview of attention for article published in Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The impact of subsidized low aromatic fuel (LAF) on petrol (gasoline) sniffing in remote Australian indigenous communities
Published in
Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13011-017-0121-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter d’Abbs, Gillian Shaw, Emma Field

Abstract

Since 2005, the Australian Government has subsidized the production and distribution of Low Aromatic Fuel (LAF) as a deterrent against petrol (gasoline) sniffing in remote Indigenous communities. LAF is used in place of unleaded petrol as a fuel for vehicles and other engines. This paper reports findings from an independent evaluation of the LAF rollout. Forty one Indigenous communities were surveyed between 2010 and 2014, with each community being visited twice at a two yearly interval. Quantitative data on prevalence of petrol sniffing were collected, as well as qualitative data on the acceptability of LAF, evidence of substitution for inhaled petrol with other drugs, and programs such as recreational, training and employment opportunities. Prevalence rates of sniffing per 1000 population for each survey year and community were calculated by dividing the total number of sniffers by the population aged 5-39 years and multiplying by 1000. Between 2011-12 and 2013-14, the total estimated number of people sniffing petrol declined from 289 to 204, a fall of 29.4%. At both times, the median petrol sniffing prevalence rate was lower in communities with LAF than in communities without LAF. In 17 of the 41 communities, comparable data were available over a longer period, commencing in 2005-06. Fifteen of these communities stocked LAF over the entire period. In these communities, the median rate of petrol sniffing declined by 96%, from 141.6 per 1000 population in 2005-06 to 5.5 in 2013-14 (p < 0.05). LAF was widely accepted, although acceptance was often qualified by a belief that LAF harmed engines. Anecdotal reports suggest that the fall in petrol sniffing may have been offset by increased use of cannabis and other drugs, but the relationship is not one of simple cause-and-effect, with evidence that an increase in cannabis use in communities commenced before the LAF rollout began. Provision of services in communities has improved in recent years, but many programs continue to be inadequately resourced. The rollout of LAF appears to have contributed to reducing petrol sniffing and associated harms in Australian Indigenous communities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 55 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Student > Master 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 21 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 8 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 11%
Psychology 6 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 23 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2021.
All research outputs
#13,566,672
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#484
of 673 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#161,324
of 318,832 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy
#4
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 673 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,832 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.