Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29047389›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2017

Investigating local policy drivers for alcohol harm prevention: a comparative case study of two local authorities in England.

John D Mooney, John Holmes, Lucy Gavens, Frank de Vocht, Matt Hickman, Karen Lock, Alan Brennan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of Effective Alcohol Control Policies: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Cities for global health.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018
    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

7 authors.

John D MooneyFaculty of Health Sciences and Well-being, University of Sunderland, City Campus, Dale Building, Sunderland, SR1 3SD, UK. john.mooney@sunderland.ac.uk.
John HolmesSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Regent Street, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK.
Lucy GavensSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Regent Street, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK.
Frank de VochtSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Matt HickmanSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Karen LockLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, Tavistock Place, London, WC1H 9SH, UK.
Alan BrennanSchool of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Regent Court, Regent Street, S1 4DA, Sheffield, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1Medical Research Council MR/K023233/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe considerable challenges associated with implementing national level alcohol policies have encouraged a renewed focus on the prospects for local-level policies in the UK and elsewhere. We adopted a case study approach to identify the major characteristics and drivers of differences in the patterns of local alcohol policies and services in two contrasting local authority (LA) areas in England.

methodsData were collected via thirteen semi-structured interviews with key informants (including public health, licensing and trading standards) and documentary analysis, including harm reduction strategies and statements of licensing policy. A two-stage thematic analysis was used to categorize all relevant statements into seven over-arching themes, by which document sources were then also analysed.

resultsThree of the seven over-arching themes (drink environment, treatment services and barriers and facilitators), provided for the most explanatory detail informing the contrasting policy responses of the two LAs: LA1 pursued a risk-informed strategy via a specialist police team working proactively with problem premises and screening systematically to identify riskier drinking. LA2 adopted a more upstream regulatory approach around restrictions on availability with less emphasis on co-ordinated screening and treatment measures.

conclusionNew powers over alcohol policy for LAs in England can produce markedly different policies for reducing alcohol-related harm. These difference are rooted in economic, opportunistic, organisational and personnel factors particular to the LAs themselves and may lead to closely tailored solutions in some policy areas and poorer co-ordination and attention in others.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionLocal GovernmentPublic PolicyAlcohol DrinkingCase-Control StudiesEnglandHumansAlcohol policyLocal governmentPolicy prioritization

Identifiers

PMID29047389
PMCPMC5648432

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.