Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21272368›Full record

ReviewBMC public health2011

A review of public opinion towards alcohol controls in Australia.

Claire Tobin, A Rob Moodie, Charles Livingstone

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC public health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Beer drinking, resistance and the politics of alcohol tax levy in Botswana.Nordisk alkohol- & narkotikatidskrift : NAT · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Claire TobinDepartment of Health and Social Science, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, PO Box 197 Caulfield East, Victoria 3145 Australia. Claire.Tobin@monash.edu
A Rob Moodie
Charles Livingstone

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncreasing concern about the negative impact of alcohol on the Australian community has renewed calls for tighter regulatory controls. This paper reviews levels of and trends in public support for liquor control regulations, regulation of alcohol promotions, and alcohol pricing and taxation reforms in Australia between 1998 and 2009.

methodsSix electronic databases and twenty public health and alcohol organisation websites were searched for research literature, reports and media releases describing levels of public support for alcohol controls. Only studies which randomly selected participants were included.

resultsTwenty-one studies were included in the review. The majority of the Australian public support most proposed alcohol controls. Levels of support are divided between targeted and universal controls.

conclusionsImplementation of targeted alcohol policies is likely to be strongly supported by the Australian public, but universal controls are liable to be unpopular. Policy makers are provided with insights into factors likely to be associated with higher public support.

Indexed as

Government RegulationPublic OpinionAlcoholismAustraliaDatabases as TopicHumans

Identifiers

PMID21272368
PMCPMC3048532

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.