ArticleBMC public health2026
A community-based qualitative study of perspectives on alcohol public health interventions and experiences of alcohol use.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe alcohol harm paradox is where lower socioeconomic position (SEP) groups experience higher rates of alcohol-related health consequences than higher SEP populations, despite drinking less alcohol. The reasons behind this are not certain, and limited research has examined the acceptability of alcohol interventions. This study aimed to inform alcohol public health interventions targeted to lower SEP individuals by addressing two research questions: (1) What are the perspectives on alcohol public health interventions? (2) What are the experiences of alcohol use?
methodsSix focus groups (n = 23) were conducted in community settings with individuals who drink alcohol. We recruited from community organisations located in relatively disadvantaged areas (identified by Index of Multiple Deprivation) and workplaces with routine and manual occupations. Questions explored were the: (1) acceptability of UK alcohol public health interventions and (2) behavioural drinking patterns and reasons for drinking. Inductive and deductive framework thematic analysis was used to develop two themes.
resultsTheme one highlighted a lack of trust towards the government's motivations for implementing alcohol interventions, including perceptions that the government does not care about alcohol-related health harms and that perceived unnecessarily high alcohol-related taxes represent the reason for its legal status. Perceived authoritative interventions and interference with free will was resented. There was scepticism towards the perceived effectiveness of interventions, including perceptions of negative outcomes and that interventions do not address the underlying reasons for alcohol use. Theme two highlighted social environmental facilitators of and barriers to alcohol use, including high alcohol availability locally. Motivations for and patterns of alcohol use were outlined, including alcohol use as a coping strategy for daily life stress and preferences for cheap high strength alcohol.
conclusionsLack of trust in government alcohol intervention was salient in this sample and may be an important consideration for intervention design. Future research could examine levels of trust in government for providing alcohol health advice and how this may be affected by SEP, and which intervention sources would be most acceptable to different SEP populations. Tailored interventions could address high alcohol availability in underserved communities, and specific motivations for and patterns of alcohol use.
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.