Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32026511›Full record

ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2020

Relationships between US state alcohol policies and alcohol outcomes: differences by gender and race/ethnicity.

Meenakshi S Subbaraman, Nina Mulia, William C Kerr, Deidre Patterson, Katherine J Karriker-Jaffe, Thomas K Greenfield

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Hazardous drinking and alcohol use disorders.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Support for Alcohol Policies in Marginalized Populations.Alcohol and alcoholism (Oxford, Oxfordshire) · 2021
    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

6 authors.

Meenakshi S SubbaramanAlcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, Emeryville, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1336-7552
Nina MuliaAlcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, Emeryville, CA, USA.
William C KerrAlcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, Emeryville, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6612-9200
Deidre PattersonAlcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, Emeryville, CA, USA.
Katherine J Karriker-JaffeAlcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, Emeryville, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2019-0222
Thomas K GreenfieldAlcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, Emeryville, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3108-4812

Funding

TREND &STRUCTURE OF ALCOHOL DEPENDENCE--GENERAL POPULATION 1990 SURVEY DATAP50AA005595 · NIAAA · WESTERN CONSORTIUM FOR PUBLIC HEALTH · PI KERR, WILLIAM C. · 1985 to 2025
$34.1M
NIAAA NIH HHS P50 AA005595
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsAlcohol taxation and availability restrictions are among the most effective methods for reducing alcohol use and problems, yet may affect demographic subgroups differently. Understanding who responds to specific policies can inform approaches for reducing disparities. We examined how state-level beverage-specific taxes and availability restrictions in the United States are associated with consumption and alcohol-related problems across subgroups defined by gender and race/ethnicity. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsData came from the 2000-15 National Alcohol Surveys (n = 28 251), computer-assisted telephone cross-sectional surveys of United States residents aged 18+. African Americans and Hispanics were oversampled. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were beverage-specific (beer, wine, spirits and total) volume, DSM-IV alcohol dependence and alcohol-related consequences. Analyses entailed survey-weighted log-log and logistic regressions adjusting for state-level beer tax, spirits tax, government-controlled spirits sales and sales tax; respondent ZIP-code-level density of off-premise beer outlets, off-premise spirits outlets and on-premise bars; respondent individual-level age, marital status, education, employment and income; and fixed effects for wet/moderate/dry US region and year.

findingsHigher beer tax was significantly (P < 0.05) associated with lower odds of any drinking among white women [odds ratio (OR) = 0.98] and lower beer volume (price-elasticity = -0.40), total volume (price-elasticity = -0.50) and odds of alcohol-related consequences (OR = 0.84) among African American women. Higher spirits tax was significantly (P < 0.05) associated with both lower beer and total volume among Hispanic women (price-elasticities = -0.73 and - 1.04, respectively) and men (price-elasticities = -1.19 and - 0.92, respectively) and decreased wine volume among Hispanic women (price-elasticity = -0.62). Apparent protective effects of living in a state with government-controlled spirits sales or a neighborhood with lower bar density was greater among white men than other groups.

conclusionsThe effects of beverage-specific taxes and alcohol availability policies may vary across subgroups, highlighting the importance of considering differential policy impacts in future research and intervention.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingAlcoholic BeveragesAlcoholismCommerceDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersEthnicityFemaleGender IdentityGovernment RegulationHumansMaleRace FactorsState GovernmentTaxesUnited StatesAlcohol availabilityalcohol controlalcohol outlet densityalcohol policybeer taxbeverage-specific consumptionspirits tax

Identifiers

PMID32026511
PMCPMC7292767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.