Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39711155›Full record

ArticleAddiction (Abingdon, England)2025

Changing public perceptions of alcohol, alcohol harms and alcohol policies: A multi-methods study to develop novel framing approaches.

Niamh Fitzgerald, Kathryn Angus, Rebecca Howell, Heather Labhart, James Morris, Laura Fenton, Nicholas Woodrow, Maria Castellina, Melissa Oldham, Claire Garnett and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Addiction (Abingdon, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

13 authors.

Niamh FitzgeraldInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3643-8165
Kathryn AngusInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Rebecca HowellInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Heather LabhartInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
James MorrisCentre for Addictive Behaviours Research, London South Bank University, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7048-8844
Laura FentonSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Nicholas WoodrowSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Maria CastellinaFrameWorks UK, London, UK.
Melissa OldhamTobacco and Alcohol Research Group, University College London, London, UK.
Claire GarnettTobacco and Alcohol Research Group, University College London, London, UK.
John HolmesSheffield Centre for Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9283-2151
Jamie BrownTobacco and Alcohol Research Group, University College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2797-5428
Rachel O'DonnellInstitute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2713-1847

Funding

Alcohol Change UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsPublic perceptions of alcohol and its related harms and policies are shaped by multiple discourses and can influence behaviour and policy support. As part of a FrameWorks-informed project to test framing approaches to improve public understanding and support for evidence-based alcohol policies in the UK, this research aimed to (i) summarise relevant evidence; (ii) compare how public understanding of alcohol harms differs from those of academic and charity experts; and (iii) develop novel framing approaches.

methods(1) a literature review including systematic, scoping and targeted components to understand previous evidence on effective framing from behaviour change, UK alcohol policy and FrameWorks literatures; (2) comparison of public views of alcohol harms and policies from four focus groups (n = 20) with those of public health experts; (3) an iterative process involving workshops and stakeholder consultation to develop 12 novel framing approaches.

resultsWe found no previous study that directly tested framing approaches for alcohol policy advocacy. Our narrative summary of 35 studies found that explaining diverse harms may be important, whereas framing that engenders empathy, emphasises dependence or invokes a sense of crisis may be less effective. In focus groups, the public linked alcohol to pleasure/socialising, whilst understandings of harm focused on severe alcohol problems and individual deficits of biology or personality, with policy proposals focused mainly on treatment/support services. Public health experts highlighted more diverse harms and solutions, emphasising environmental and commercial causes. Comparison of public and expert views yielded six tasks for novel framing approaches to deepen public understanding. The team co-developed initial framing ideas (n = 31), before finalising 12 narrative framing approaches based on values (n = 5), metaphors (n = 3) and explanation (n = 4).

conclusionsIn the United Kingdom, public and expert understandings of alcoholrelated harms, causes and solutions differ. Along with prior evidence, these differences can inform novel framing approaches designed to deepen public understanding.

Indexed as

Alcohol DrinkingHealth PolicyPublic OpinionFocus GroupsHumansUnited Kingdomalcoholalcohol advocacyalcohol industrycommercial determinantscommunicationsframingpolicy advocacypublic healthpublic opinionqualitative

Identifiers

PMID39711155
PMCPMC11907333

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.