ArticleBMJ public health2024
Public health involvement in alcohol licensing decisions in the UK: a systematic review of qualitative studies.
Article in BMJ public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: One approach to reducing alcohol consumption and related harm is to limit physical availability. However, a recent review found alcohol licensing decisions are not consistently associated with improved local health outcomes in the UK, despite public health teams (PHTs) having a statutory role in licensing. This may be explained by limitations in regulatory powers, or because PHTs have been unable to sufficiently influence the use of regulation. This review aims to synthesise qualitative evidence to understand the nature, barriers and enablers, and value of PHT involvement in alcohol licensing decisions in the UK. Methods: A systematic review of qualitative evidence was conducted. Five electronic databases were searched, supplemented by web searches for grey literature and author, reference and citation searches for included studies. Data was extracted and quality assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist. Data was synthesised using thematic synthesis, and confidence in the findings was judged using the Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) approach. Results: 10 reports, relating to four separate studies, met the eligibility criteria. Thematic synthesis generated seven analytical themes. We found variation in how PHTs' role in licensing is understood and enacted, with shared barriers and enablers. PHTs are often not regarded as a key consultee, though some teams found success in pursuing a more strategic approach. While the public health licensing objective in Scotland is considered an asset, it does not guarantee influence. Regardless of its presence, there is variation in the perceived value of PHTs' involvement in licensing. Conclusions: A more strategic focus may be of value to PHTs and help strengthen their impact on licensing. However, given the limited potential for public health benefits through influencing regulatory decision-making, PHTs may want to consider if it is the most effective use of limited resource in tackling alcohol-related harms. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023452508.
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.