在苏格兰实施酒精最低单位定价的预期和意外后果:一个自然实验

Vivian So, A. Millard, S. Katikireddi, Ross Forsyth, S. Allstaff, P. Deluca, C. Drummond, Allison Ford, D. Eadie, N. Fitzgerald, L. Graham, S. Hilton, A. Ludbrook, G. McCartney, O. Molaodi, Michele Open, C. Patterson, Samantha Perry, T. Phillips, G. Schembri, M. Stead, Janet Wilson, C. Yap, L. Bond, A. Leyland
{"title":"在苏格兰实施酒精最低单位定价的预期和意外后果:一个自然实验","authors":"Vivian So, A. Millard, S. Katikireddi, Ross Forsyth, S. Allstaff, P. Deluca, C. Drummond, Allison Ford, D. Eadie, N. Fitzgerald, L. Graham, S. Hilton, A. Ludbrook, G. McCartney, O. Molaodi, Michele Open, C. Patterson, Samantha Perry, T. Phillips, G. Schembri, M. Stead, Janet Wilson, C. Yap, L. Bond, A. Leyland","doi":"10.3310/phr09110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Scotland was the first country to implement minimum unit pricing for alcohol nationally. Minimum unit pricing aims to reduce alcohol-related harms and to narrow health inequalities. Minimum unit pricing sets a minimum retail price based on alcohol content, targeting products preferentially consumed by high-risk drinkers. This study comprised three components.\n \n \n \n This study comprised three components assessing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related attendances in emergency departments, investigating potential unintended effects of minimum unit pricing on alcohol source and drug use, and exploring changes in public attitudes, experiences and norms towards minimum unit pricing and alcohol use.\n \n \n \n We conducted a natural experiment study using repeated cross-sectional surveys comparing Scotland (intervention) and North England (control) areas. This involved comparing changes in Scotland following the introduction of minimum unit pricing with changes seen in the north of England over the same period. Difference-in-difference analyses compared intervention and control areas. Focus groups with young people and heavy drinkers, and interviews with professional stakeholders before and after minimum unit pricing implementation in Scotland allowed exploration of attitudes, experiences and behaviours, stakeholder perceptions and potential mechanisms of effect.\n \n \n \n Four emergency departments in Scotland and North England (component 1), six sexual health clinics in Scotland and North England (component 2), and focus groups and interviews in Scotland (component 3).\n \n \n \n Research nurses interviewed 23,455 adults in emergency departments, and 15,218 participants self-completed questionnaires in sexual health clinics. We interviewed 30 stakeholders and 105 individuals participated in focus groups.\n \n \n \n Minimum unit pricing sets a minimum retail price based on alcohol content, targeting products preferentially consumed by high-risk drinkers.\n \n \n \n The odds ratio for an alcohol-related emergency department attendance following minimum unit pricing was 1.14 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.44; p = 0.272). In absolute terms, we estimated that minimum unit pricing was associated with 258 more alcohol-related emergency department visits (95% confidence interval –191 to 707) across Scotland than would have been the case had minimum unit pricing not been implemented. The odds ratio for illicit drug consumption following minimum unit pricing was 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.24; p = 0.612). Concerns about harms, including crime and the use of other sources of alcohol, were generally not realised. Stakeholders and the public generally did not perceive price increases or changed consumption. A lack of understanding of the policy may have caused concerns about harms to dependent drinkers among participants from more deprived areas.\n \n \n \n The short interval between policy announcement and implementation left limited time for pre-intervention data collection.\n \n \n \n Within the emergency departments, there was no evidence of a beneficial impact of minimum unit pricing. Implementation appeared to have been successful and there was no evidence of substitution from alcohol consumption to other drugs. Drinkers and stakeholders largely reported not noticing any change in price or consumption. The lack of effect observed in these settings in the short term, and the problem-free implementation, suggests that the price per unit set (£0.50) was acceptable, but may be too low. Our evaluation, which itself contains multiple components, is part of a wider programme co-ordinated by Public Health Scotland and the results should be understood in this wider context.\n \n \n \n Repeated evaluation of similar policies in different contexts with varying prices would enable a fuller picture of the relationship between price and impacts.\n \n \n \n Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16039407.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 9, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32306,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intended and unintended consequences of the implementation of minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland: a natural experiment\",\"authors\":\"Vivian So, A. Millard, S. Katikireddi, Ross Forsyth, S. Allstaff, P. Deluca, C. Drummond, Allison Ford, D. Eadie, N. Fitzgerald, L. Graham, S. Hilton, A. Ludbrook, G. McCartney, O. Molaodi, Michele Open, C. Patterson, Samantha Perry, T. Phillips, G. Schembri, M. Stead, Janet Wilson, C. Yap, L. Bond, A. Leyland\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/phr09110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n Scotland was the first country to implement minimum unit pricing for alcohol nationally. Minimum unit pricing aims to reduce alcohol-related harms and to narrow health inequalities. Minimum unit pricing sets a minimum retail price based on alcohol content, targeting products preferentially consumed by high-risk drinkers. This study comprised three components.\\n \\n \\n \\n This study comprised three components assessing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related attendances in emergency departments, investigating potential unintended effects of minimum unit pricing on alcohol source and drug use, and exploring changes in public attitudes, experiences and norms towards minimum unit pricing and alcohol use.\\n \\n \\n \\n We conducted a natural experiment study using repeated cross-sectional surveys comparing Scotland (intervention) and North England (control) areas. This involved comparing changes in Scotland following the introduction of minimum unit pricing with changes seen in the north of England over the same period. Difference-in-difference analyses compared intervention and control areas. Focus groups with young people and heavy drinkers, and interviews with professional stakeholders before and after minimum unit pricing implementation in Scotland allowed exploration of attitudes, experiences and behaviours, stakeholder perceptions and potential mechanisms of effect.\\n \\n \\n \\n Four emergency departments in Scotland and North England (component 1), six sexual health clinics in Scotland and North England (component 2), and focus groups and interviews in Scotland (component 3).\\n \\n \\n \\n Research nurses interviewed 23,455 adults in emergency departments, and 15,218 participants self-completed questionnaires in sexual health clinics. We interviewed 30 stakeholders and 105 individuals participated in focus groups.\\n \\n \\n \\n Minimum unit pricing sets a minimum retail price based on alcohol content, targeting products preferentially consumed by high-risk drinkers.\\n \\n \\n \\n The odds ratio for an alcohol-related emergency department attendance following minimum unit pricing was 1.14 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.44; p = 0.272). In absolute terms, we estimated that minimum unit pricing was associated with 258 more alcohol-related emergency department visits (95% confidence interval –191 to 707) across Scotland than would have been the case had minimum unit pricing not been implemented. The odds ratio for illicit drug consumption following minimum unit pricing was 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.24; p = 0.612). Concerns about harms, including crime and the use of other sources of alcohol, were generally not realised. Stakeholders and the public generally did not perceive price increases or changed consumption. A lack of understanding of the policy may have caused concerns about harms to dependent drinkers among participants from more deprived areas.\\n \\n \\n \\n The short interval between policy announcement and implementation left limited time for pre-intervention data collection.\\n \\n \\n \\n Within the emergency departments, there was no evidence of a beneficial impact of minimum unit pricing. Implementation appeared to have been successful and there was no evidence of substitution from alcohol consumption to other drugs. Drinkers and stakeholders largely reported not noticing any change in price or consumption. The lack of effect observed in these settings in the short term, and the problem-free implementation, suggests that the price per unit set (£0.50) was acceptable, but may be too low. Our evaluation, which itself contains multiple components, is part of a wider programme co-ordinated by Public Health Scotland and the results should be understood in this wider context.\\n \\n \\n \\n Repeated evaluation of similar policies in different contexts with varying prices would enable a fuller picture of the relationship between price and impacts.\\n \\n \\n \\n Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16039407.\\n \\n \\n \\n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 9, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":32306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/phr09110\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/phr09110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

苏格兰是第一个在全国范围内实施酒精最低单位定价的国家。最低单位定价旨在减少与酒精有关的危害并缩小健康不平等。最低单位定价是根据酒精含量设定的最低零售价格,目标是高风险饮酒者优先消费的产品。本研究由三个部分组成。本研究包括三个组成部分,评估酒精消费和急诊部门与酒精相关的就诊率,调查最低单位定价对酒精来源和药物使用的潜在意外影响,并探索公众对最低单位定价和酒精使用的态度、经验和规范的变化。我们进行了一项自然实验研究,使用重复的横断面调查来比较苏格兰(干预)和北英格兰(对照)地区。这包括比较苏格兰引入最低单位定价后的变化与同期英格兰北部的变化。差异中差异分析比较了干预区和控制区。与年轻人和酗酒者的焦点小组,以及在苏格兰实施最低单位定价前后与专业利益相关者的访谈,允许探索态度,经验和行为,利益相关者的看法和潜在的影响机制。苏格兰和北英格兰的四个急诊科(组成部分1),苏格兰和北英格兰的六个性健康诊所(组成部分2),以及苏格兰的焦点小组和访谈(组成部分3)。研究护士在急诊科采访了23,455名成年人,在性健康诊所采访了15,218名参与者自行完成问卷。我们采访了30名利益相关者和105名参与焦点小组的个人。最低单位定价是根据酒精含量设定的最低零售价格,目标是高风险饮酒者优先消费的产品。最低单位定价后与酒精相关的急诊就诊的优势比为1.14(95%可信区间0.90 ~ 1.44;p = 0.272)。从绝对值来看,我们估计,在苏格兰,与没有实施最低单价相比,最低单价与酒精相关的急诊就诊增加了258次(95%置信区间-191至707)。最低单位定价后非法药物消费的优势比为1.04(95%可信区间为0.88 ~ 1.24;p = 0.612)。对危害的关切,包括犯罪和使用其他来源的酒精,一般没有实现。利益相关者和公众普遍没有察觉到价格上涨或消费改变。由于对这项政策缺乏了解,来自贫困地区的参与者可能会担心对依赖饮酒者的伤害。政策公布和实施之间的时间间隔很短,使得干预前数据收集的时间有限。在急诊部门,没有证据表明最低单位定价有有益的影响。执行工作似乎是成功的,没有证据表明有人用酒精代替其他药物。饮酒者和利益相关者大多表示没有注意到价格或消费量的任何变化。在这些环境中观察到的短期效果不足,以及没有问题的实施,表明每套产品的价格(0.5英镑)是可以接受的,但可能太低了。我们的评估本身包含多个组成部分,是苏格兰公共卫生协调的更广泛方案的一部分,结果应该在更广泛的背景下理解。对不同情况下价格不同的类似政策进行反复评价,可以更全面地了解价格与影响之间的关系。当前对照试验ISRCTN16039407。该项目由国家卫生研究所(NIHR)公共卫生研究方案资助,将全文发表在《公共卫生研究》上;第9卷第11期请参阅NIHR期刊图书馆网站了解更多项目信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Intended and unintended consequences of the implementation of minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland: a natural experiment
Scotland was the first country to implement minimum unit pricing for alcohol nationally. Minimum unit pricing aims to reduce alcohol-related harms and to narrow health inequalities. Minimum unit pricing sets a minimum retail price based on alcohol content, targeting products preferentially consumed by high-risk drinkers. This study comprised three components. This study comprised three components assessing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related attendances in emergency departments, investigating potential unintended effects of minimum unit pricing on alcohol source and drug use, and exploring changes in public attitudes, experiences and norms towards minimum unit pricing and alcohol use. We conducted a natural experiment study using repeated cross-sectional surveys comparing Scotland (intervention) and North England (control) areas. This involved comparing changes in Scotland following the introduction of minimum unit pricing with changes seen in the north of England over the same period. Difference-in-difference analyses compared intervention and control areas. Focus groups with young people and heavy drinkers, and interviews with professional stakeholders before and after minimum unit pricing implementation in Scotland allowed exploration of attitudes, experiences and behaviours, stakeholder perceptions and potential mechanisms of effect. Four emergency departments in Scotland and North England (component 1), six sexual health clinics in Scotland and North England (component 2), and focus groups and interviews in Scotland (component 3). Research nurses interviewed 23,455 adults in emergency departments, and 15,218 participants self-completed questionnaires in sexual health clinics. We interviewed 30 stakeholders and 105 individuals participated in focus groups. Minimum unit pricing sets a minimum retail price based on alcohol content, targeting products preferentially consumed by high-risk drinkers. The odds ratio for an alcohol-related emergency department attendance following minimum unit pricing was 1.14 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.44; p = 0.272). In absolute terms, we estimated that minimum unit pricing was associated with 258 more alcohol-related emergency department visits (95% confidence interval –191 to 707) across Scotland than would have been the case had minimum unit pricing not been implemented. The odds ratio for illicit drug consumption following minimum unit pricing was 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.24; p = 0.612). Concerns about harms, including crime and the use of other sources of alcohol, were generally not realised. Stakeholders and the public generally did not perceive price increases or changed consumption. A lack of understanding of the policy may have caused concerns about harms to dependent drinkers among participants from more deprived areas. The short interval between policy announcement and implementation left limited time for pre-intervention data collection. Within the emergency departments, there was no evidence of a beneficial impact of minimum unit pricing. Implementation appeared to have been successful and there was no evidence of substitution from alcohol consumption to other drugs. Drinkers and stakeholders largely reported not noticing any change in price or consumption. The lack of effect observed in these settings in the short term, and the problem-free implementation, suggests that the price per unit set (£0.50) was acceptable, but may be too low. Our evaluation, which itself contains multiple components, is part of a wider programme co-ordinated by Public Health Scotland and the results should be understood in this wider context. Repeated evaluation of similar policies in different contexts with varying prices would enable a fuller picture of the relationship between price and impacts. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16039407. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 9, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
46 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信