ArticleDrug and alcohol review2023
Piloting a classification framework for the types of evidence used in alcohol policymaking.
Article in Drug and alcohol review, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Research Influencers to Substance Use Policymakers: Bibliometrics Demonstrate Translation From Research to Policy.Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs · 2026Article
- Piloting a classification framework for the types of evidence used in alcohol policymaking.Drug and alcohol review · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMost studies of alcohol policy have focussed on the role of industry. However, little is known about the evidence base used in alcohol policymaking or policymakers' actions in the field. Here, we mapped the different evidence types used in a case study to construct a classification framework of the evidence types used in alcohol policymaking.
methodsUsing a case study from the state-level in Australia, we used content analysis to delineate the evidence types cited across six phases of a policymaking process. We then grouped these types into a higher-level classification framework. We used descriptive statistics to study how the different evidence types were used in the policymaking process.
resultsThirty-one evidence types were identified in the case study, across four classes of knowledge: person knowledge, shared knowledge, studied knowledge and practice knowledge. The participating public preferenced studied knowledge. Policymakers preferenced practice knowledge over all other types of knowledge. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionThe classification framework expands on models of evidence and knowledge used across public health, by mapping new evidence types and proposing an inductive method of classification. The policymakers' preferences found here are in line with theories regarding the alcohol industry's influence on policymaking. The classification framework piloted here can provide a useful tool to examine the evidence base used in decision-making. Further study of evidence types used in policymaking processes can help inform research translation and advocacy efforts to produce healthier alcohol policies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.