Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30265999›Full record

ArticleDrug and alcohol dependence2018

Informing drinkers: Can current UK alcohol labels be improved?

Anna K M Blackwell, Katie Drax, Angela S Attwood, Marcus R Munafò, Olivia M Maynard

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Drug and alcohol dependence, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Alcohol Health Warning Labels: A Rapid Review with Action Recommendations.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  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

5 authors.

Anna K M BlackwellUK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, 12a Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TU, UK; MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK.
Katie DraxDepartment of Psychology, University of Bath, 10 West, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
Angela S AttwoodUK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, 12a Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TU, UK; MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK.
Marcus R MunafòUK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, 12a Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TU, UK; MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK.
Olivia M MaynardUK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, 12a Priory Road, Bristol, BS8 1TU, UK; MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit (IEU), University of Bristol, Oakfield House, Oakfield Grove, Bristol, BS8 2BN, UK. Electronic address: olivia.maynard@bristol.ac.uk.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00011/7Medical Research Council MC_UU_12013/6Medical Research Council MR/K023195/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlcohol labeling provides a relatively low-cost, population-level approach to providing information about alcohol's content and harms.

methodWe conducted an online between-subjects experiment with two tasks to examine the impact of alcohol labels (n = 1884). In one task, participants were randomized to view one of four different unit labels (including labels currently used by the alcohol industry and novel labels which provide more information about how the number of units relates to recommended drinking guidelines). We assessed participants' accuracy of estimating weekly serving limits of alcohol. In a second task, participants were randomized to view one of eight health warnings (which varied according to message content, specificity, and framing). We assessed the motivation to quit after viewing the health warning.

resultsAccuracy of estimating weekly serving limits of alcohol was greater for participants who viewed novel unit labels compared to the industry standard labels. Motivation to drink less was higher amongst participants who had viewed both cancer and negatively framed messages, compared to mental health and positively framed messages.

conclusionExisting unit labels used by the alcohol industry can be improved; the inclusion of unit information per serving and how these relate to low-risk drinking guidelines may be important for facilitating consumer understanding. Health warning labels should be included alongside units to provide consumers with information about the harms associated with alcohol and discourage riskier drinking behavior.

Indexed as

MotivationAdultAlcohol DrinkingAlcoholic BeveragesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPhotic StimulationProduct LabelingRandom AllocationRisk FactorsUnited KingdomAlcohol health warningsAlcohol labelingAlcohol unitsConsumer knowledgePublic health

Identifiers

PMID30265999
PMCPMC6204577

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.