Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32988938›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Comparing responses to public health and industry-funded alcohol harm reduction advertisements: an experimental study.

Emily Brennan, Danielle A J M Schoenaker, Sarah J Durkin, Kimberley Dunstone, Helen G Dixon, Michael D Slater, Simone Pettigrew, Melanie A Wakefield

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Emily BrennanCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia emily.brennan@cancervic.org.au.ORCID 0000-0001-9779-0210
Danielle A J M SchoenakerCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7652-990X
Sarah J DurkinCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2795-6454
Kimberley DunstoneCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Helen G DixonCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5365-9605
Michael D SlaterSchool of Communication, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4279-346X
Simone PettigrewGeorge Institute for Global Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3921-1174
Melanie A WakefieldCentre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6183-5699
Cancer Council Victoria · AUThe George Institute for Global Health · AUThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesConduct a head-to-head experimental test of responses to alcohol harm reduction advertisements developed by alcohol industry Social Aspects/Public Relations Organisations (SAPROs) versus those developed by public health (PH) agencies. We hypothesised that, on average, SAPRO advertisements would be less effective at generating motivation (H1) and intentions to reduce alcohol consumption (H2) but more effective at generating positive perceptions of people who drink (H3).

designOnline experiment with random assignment to condition.

participants2923 Australian adult weekly drinkers (49% high-risk drinkers) recruited from an opt-in online panel.

interventionsParticipants viewed 3 of 83 advertisements developed by PH agencies (n=2174) or 3 of 28 advertisements developed by SAPROs (n=749). PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants reported their motivation to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed; behave responsibly and/or not get drunk; and limit their drinking around/never supply to minors, as well as intentions to avoid drinking alcohol completely; reduce the number of drinking occasions; and reduce the amount of alcohol consumed per occasion. Participants also reported their perceptions of people who drink alcohol on six success-related items and four fun-related items.

resultsCompared with drinkers exposed to PH advertisements, those exposed to SAPRO advertisements reported lower motivation to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed (β=-0.091, 95% CI -0.171 to -0.010), and lower odds of intending to avoid alcohol completely (OR=0.77, 0.63 to 0.94) and to reduce the amount of alcohol consumed per occasion (OR=0.82, 0.69 to 0.97). SAPRO advertisements generated more favourable fun-related perceptions of drinkers (β=0.095, 0.013 to 0.177).

conclusionsThe alcohol harm reduction advertisements produced by alcohol industry SAPROs that were tested in this study were not as effective at generating motivation and intentions to reduce alcohol consumption as those developed by PH organisations. These findings raise questions as to whether SAPROs should play a role in alcohol harm reduction efforts.

Indexed as

Harm ReductionPublic HealthAdultAdvertisingAlcohol DrinkingAustraliaHumanseducation & training (see medical education & training)preventive medicinepublic health

Identifiers

PMID32988938
PMCPMC7523211
OpenAlexW3089278014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.