Benchmarking alcohol policy based on stringency and impact: The International Alcohol Control (IAC) policy index

PLOS Global Public Health · 22 authors, 14 centres

AI SUMMARY

FIDELITY 100%

This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.

AGENT 01 · STRUCTURED SUMMARY

TRACE TO SOURCE

“

TL;DR

This study developed an alcohol policy index combining measures of policy stringency and on-the-ground impact for four key domains across 12 countries. The International Alcohol Control (IAC) Policy Index showed a very high negative correlation with recorded alcohol per capita consumption.

Full summary

659 CHARS

The study created the International Alcohol Control (IAC) Policy Index to benchmark alcohol policy by assessing both the stringency of legislation and the 'on-the-ground' impact of policies related to availability, pricing, marketing, and drink driving. The researchers found a very strong negative correlation (-0.91) between the overall IAC Policy Index score and recorded alcohol per capita consumption (APC). The study notes this is a cross-sectional analysis, so causal relationships cannot be determined, and the convenience sample may limit generalizability. The index is presented as a simple tool for benchmarking and communication with policymakers.

STUDY TYPE

other

SPECIALTY

epidemiology

SUMMARISED BY

AI pipeline

FIDELITY CHECK

100% · A

ORIGINAL PAPER

PMC10021514

Benchmarking alcohol policy based on stringency and impact: The International Alcohol Control (IAC) policy index

PLOS Global Public Health

READ THE FULL PAPER

ABSTRACT

This study developed a measurement tool to assess stringency and ‘on-the-ground’ impact of four key alcohol policy domains to create an alcohol policy index suitable for benchmarking alcohol policy and assessing change over time in middle- and high-income countries. It involved a collaboration between researchers in 12 diverse countries: New Zealand; Australia; England; Scotland; Netherlands; Vietnam; Thailand; South Africa; Turkey; Chile; Saint Kitts and Nevis and Mongolia. Data on the four most effective alcohol policy domains (availability, pricing policy, alcohol marketing, drink driving) were used to create an alcohol policy index based on their association with alcohol per capita consumption (APC) of commercial (recorded) alcohol. An innovation was the inclusion of measures of impact along with the stringency of the legislation or regulation. The resulting International Alcohol Control (IAC) Policy Index showed a very high negative correlation (-0.91) with recorded APC. Greater affordability of alcohol, an impact measure taking into account prices paid and countries’ Gross Domestic Product, was predictive of higher APC (-0.80). Countries in which more modes of alcohol marketing are legally allowed and used had higher APC. Legislation on outlet density and drink driving predicted APC whereas trading hours did not. While stringency and impact measures varied between domains in terms of relationship with APC, overall, there was a strong correlation between impact and stringency (0.77). The IAC Policy Index, which includes measures of policy stringency and ‘on-the-ground’ impacts in relation to four key policy areas, was found to be strongly associated with commercial alcohol consumed in a number of diverse country settings. It showed a larger relationship than previous indices that include more policy dimensions. The index provides a relatively simple tool for benchmarking and communication with policy makers to encourage a strong focus on uptake of these four most effective alcohol policies.

CITATION EXPORT

Sally Casswell, Taisia Huckle, Karl Parker et al.. Benchmarking alcohol policy based on stringency and impact: The International Alcohol Control (IAC) policy index. PLOS Global Public Health. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000109

AUTHORS

22 · 14 CENTRES

Sally Casswell, Taisia Huckle, Karl Parker, Jose Romeo, Thomas Graydon-Guy, June Leung, Karimu Byron, Sarah Callinan, Surasak Chaiyasong, Ross Gordon, Anne Marie MacKintosh, Petra Meier, Guillermo Paraje, Charles D. Parry, Cuong Pham, Petal Petersen Williams, Steve Randerson, Karen Schelleman-Offermans, Gantuya Sengee, Perihan Torun, Wim van Dalen, Nadine Harker

1 SHORE & Whariki Research Centre, College of Health, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
2 National Council on Drug Abuse Prevention, Basseterre, St Kitts and Nevis
3 Centre for Alcohol Policy Research (CAPR), School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
4 International Health Policy Program (IHPP), Ministry of Public Health, Nonthaburi, Thailand
5 Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, United Kingdom
6 School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England, United Kingdom
7 Business School, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez, Santiago, Chile
8 Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, Western Cape, South Africa
9 Center for Injury Policy and Prevention Research (CIPPR), Hanoi University of Public Health, Hanoi, Vietnam
10 Faculty of Psychology & Neuroscience, Work & Social Psychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands
11 Public Health Policy and Coordination Department, National Center for Public Health of Mongolia, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
12 Department of Public Health, Hamidiye International Medical School, Istanbul, Turkey
13 Dutch Institute for Alcohol Policy STAP, Utrecht, The Netherlands
South African Medical Research Council, SOUTH AFRICA

EDITOR / REVIEWER

Nasheeta Peer