公共卫生团队如何在酒精场所许可中定位他们的不同角色:ExILEnS多利益相关者访谈结果

R. O’Donnell, A. Mohan, R. Purves, N. Maani, M. Egan, N. Fitzgerald
{"title":"公共卫生团队如何在酒精场所许可中定位他们的不同角色:ExILEnS多利益相关者访谈结果","authors":"R. O’Donnell, A. Mohan, R. Purves, N. Maani, M. Egan, N. Fitzgerald","doi":"10.3310/xcuw1239","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n In England and Scotland, local governments regulate the sale of alcohol by awarding licences to premises to permit the sale of alcohol for consumption on or off the premises, under certain conditions; without such a licence, alcohol cannot be legally sold. In recent years, many local public health teams have become proactive in engaging with alcohol licensing, encouraging licensing authorities to act in ways intended to improve population health.\n \n \n \n This research aimed to explore and understand the approaches and activities of public health stakeholders (i.e. NHS staff and other public health professionals) in seeking to influence local alcohol licensing policy and decisions, and the views of licensing stakeholders (i.e. licensing officers/managers, police staff with a licensing remit, elected members and licensing lawyers/clerks) on the acceptability and effectiveness of these approaches.\n \n \n \n Local public health teams in England and Scotland were directly informed about this multisite study. Scoping calls were conducted with interested teams to explore their level of activity in alcohol licensing from 2012 across several categories. Twenty local authority areas with public health teams active in licensing matters were recruited purposively in England (n = 14) and Scotland (n = 6) to vary by region and rurality. Fifty-three in-depth telephone interviews (28 with public health stakeholders and 25 with licensing stakeholders outside health, such as local authority licensing teams/lawyers or police) were conducted. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically in NVivo 12 (QSR International, Warrington, UK) using inductive and deductive approaches.\n \n \n \n Public health stakeholders’ approaches to engagement varied, falling into three main (and sometimes overlapping) types. (1) Many public health stakeholders in England and all public health stakeholders in Scotland took a ‘challenging’ approach to influencing licensing decisions and policies. Reducing health harms was felt to necessitate a focus on reducing availability and generating longer-term culture change, citing international evidence on the links between availability and alcohol-related harms. Some of these stakeholders viewed this as being a narrow, ‘nanny state’ approach, whereas others welcomed public health expertise and its evidence-based approach and input. (2) Some public health stakeholders favoured a more passive, ‘supportive’ approach, with some reporting that reducing availability was unachievable. They reported that, within the constraints of current licensing systems, alcohol availability may be contained (at least in theory) but cannot be reduced, because existing businesses cannot be closed on availability grounds. In this ‘supportive’ approach, public health stakeholders supplied licensing teams with data on request or waited for guidance from licensing teams on when and how to get involved. Therefore, public health action supported the licensing team in their aim of promoting ‘safe’ and ‘responsible’ retailing of alcohol and/or focused on short-term outcomes other than health, such as crime. (3) Some public health stakeholders favoured a ‘collaborative’ approach in which they worked in close partnership with licensing teams; this could include a focus on containing availability or responsible retail of alcohol, or both.\n \n \n \n In engaging with alcohol licensing, public health stakeholders adapted their approaches, sometimes resulting in a diminished focus on public health goals. Sampling did not include lower-activity areas, in which experiences might differ. The extent to which current licensing systems enable achievement of public health goals is questionable and the effectiveness of public health efforts merits quantitative evaluation.\n \n \n \n The study is registered with the Research Registry as researchregistry6162.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in Public Health Research. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32306,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How public health teams navigate their different roles in alcohol premises licensing: ExILEnS multistakeholder interview findings\",\"authors\":\"R. O’Donnell, A. Mohan, R. Purves, N. Maani, M. Egan, N. Fitzgerald\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/xcuw1239\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n In England and Scotland, local governments regulate the sale of alcohol by awarding licences to premises to permit the sale of alcohol for consumption on or off the premises, under certain conditions; without such a licence, alcohol cannot be legally sold. In recent years, many local public health teams have become proactive in engaging with alcohol licensing, encouraging licensing authorities to act in ways intended to improve population health.\\n \\n \\n \\n This research aimed to explore and understand the approaches and activities of public health stakeholders (i.e. NHS staff and other public health professionals) in seeking to influence local alcohol licensing policy and decisions, and the views of licensing stakeholders (i.e. licensing officers/managers, police staff with a licensing remit, elected members and licensing lawyers/clerks) on the acceptability and effectiveness of these approaches.\\n \\n \\n \\n Local public health teams in England and Scotland were directly informed about this multisite study. Scoping calls were conducted with interested teams to explore their level of activity in alcohol licensing from 2012 across several categories. Twenty local authority areas with public health teams active in licensing matters were recruited purposively in England (n = 14) and Scotland (n = 6) to vary by region and rurality. Fifty-three in-depth telephone interviews (28 with public health stakeholders and 25 with licensing stakeholders outside health, such as local authority licensing teams/lawyers or police) were conducted. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically in NVivo 12 (QSR International, Warrington, UK) using inductive and deductive approaches.\\n \\n \\n \\n Public health stakeholders’ approaches to engagement varied, falling into three main (and sometimes overlapping) types. (1) Many public health stakeholders in England and all public health stakeholders in Scotland took a ‘challenging’ approach to influencing licensing decisions and policies. Reducing health harms was felt to necessitate a focus on reducing availability and generating longer-term culture change, citing international evidence on the links between availability and alcohol-related harms. Some of these stakeholders viewed this as being a narrow, ‘nanny state’ approach, whereas others welcomed public health expertise and its evidence-based approach and input. (2) Some public health stakeholders favoured a more passive, ‘supportive’ approach, with some reporting that reducing availability was unachievable. They reported that, within the constraints of current licensing systems, alcohol availability may be contained (at least in theory) but cannot be reduced, because existing businesses cannot be closed on availability grounds. In this ‘supportive’ approach, public health stakeholders supplied licensing teams with data on request or waited for guidance from licensing teams on when and how to get involved. Therefore, public health action supported the licensing team in their aim of promoting ‘safe’ and ‘responsible’ retailing of alcohol and/or focused on short-term outcomes other than health, such as crime. (3) Some public health stakeholders favoured a ‘collaborative’ approach in which they worked in close partnership with licensing teams; this could include a focus on containing availability or responsible retail of alcohol, or both.\\n \\n \\n \\n In engaging with alcohol licensing, public health stakeholders adapted their approaches, sometimes resulting in a diminished focus on public health goals. Sampling did not include lower-activity areas, in which experiences might differ. The extent to which current licensing systems enable achievement of public health goals is questionable and the effectiveness of public health efforts merits quantitative evaluation.\\n \\n \\n \\n The study is registered with the Research Registry as researchregistry6162.\\n \\n \\n \\n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in Public Health Research. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":32306,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Health Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Health Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/xcuw1239\",\"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/xcuw1239","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在英格兰和苏格兰,地方政府通过向场所颁发许可证来规范酒精销售,允许在某些条件下在场所内或场所外销售酒精;没有这样的许可证,酒类就不能合法销售。近年来,许多地方公共卫生小组积极参与发放酒类许可证的工作,鼓励发放许可证的当局采取旨在改善人口健康的行动。本研究旨在探索和了解公共卫生利益攸关方(即NHS工作人员和其他公共卫生专业人员)在寻求影响当地酒精许可政策和决定方面的方法和活动,以及许可利益攸关方(即许可官员/经理、负责许可的警察工作人员、民选成员和许可律师/办事员)对这些方法的可接受性和有效性的看法。英格兰和苏格兰的当地公共卫生团队被直接告知这项多地点研究。与感兴趣的团队进行了范围界定电话会议,以探索他们从2012年起在几个类别的酒类许可方面的活动水平。在英格兰(n = 14)和苏格兰(n = 6)有目的地招募了20个地方当局地区的公共卫生小组,这些小组积极参与许可证事宜,因地区和农村而异。进行了53次深度电话访谈(28次与公共卫生利益攸关方访谈,25次与卫生部门以外的发放许可证利益攸关方访谈,如地方当局发放许可证小组/律师或警察)。访谈记录在NVivo 12 (QSR国际,沃灵顿,英国)中使用归纳和演绎方法进行了主题分析。公共卫生利益攸关方参与的方法各不相同,可分为三种主要(有时相互重叠)类型。(1)英格兰的许多公共卫生利益相关者和苏格兰的所有公共卫生利益相关者采取了一种“具有挑战性”的方法来影响许可决定和政策。与会者认为,要减少对健康的危害,就必须把重点放在减少可得性和促成长期文化变革上,并引用了有关可得性与酒精相关危害之间联系的国际证据。其中一些利益攸关方认为这是一种狭隘的“保姆国家”方法,而另一些利益攸关方则欢迎公共卫生专业知识及其基于证据的方法和投入。(2)一些公共卫生利益相关者倾向于采取一种更被动的“支持性”方法,一些人报告说,减少可得性是不可能实现的。他们报告说,在目前许可制度的限制下,酒精供应可以得到控制(至少在理论上),但不能减少,因为现有的企业不能以供应为理由关闭。在这种“支持性”方法中,公共卫生利益攸关方应请求向许可团队提供数据,或等待许可团队就何时以及如何参与提供指导。因此,公共卫生行动支持许可小组的目标,即促进"安全"和"负责任"的酒类零售和/或侧重于健康以外的短期结果,如犯罪。(3)一些公共卫生利益攸关方倾向于与许可团队密切合作的“协作”方式;这可能包括侧重于控制酒精的可得性或负责任的零售,或两者兼而有之。在涉及酒精许可问题时,公共卫生利益攸关方调整了他们的做法,有时导致对公共卫生目标的关注减少。抽样不包括低活动区域,在那里体验可能不同。目前的许可制度在多大程度上能够实现公共卫生目标值得怀疑,公共卫生工作的有效性值得定量评估。该研究在研究登记处注册为researchregistry6162。该项目由国家卫生和保健研究所(NIHR)公共卫生研究方案资助,将发表在《公共卫生研究》上。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。
How public health teams navigate their different roles in alcohol premises licensing: ExILEnS multistakeholder interview findings
In England and Scotland, local governments regulate the sale of alcohol by awarding licences to premises to permit the sale of alcohol for consumption on or off the premises, under certain conditions; without such a licence, alcohol cannot be legally sold. In recent years, many local public health teams have become proactive in engaging with alcohol licensing, encouraging licensing authorities to act in ways intended to improve population health. This research aimed to explore and understand the approaches and activities of public health stakeholders (i.e. NHS staff and other public health professionals) in seeking to influence local alcohol licensing policy and decisions, and the views of licensing stakeholders (i.e. licensing officers/managers, police staff with a licensing remit, elected members and licensing lawyers/clerks) on the acceptability and effectiveness of these approaches. Local public health teams in England and Scotland were directly informed about this multisite study. Scoping calls were conducted with interested teams to explore their level of activity in alcohol licensing from 2012 across several categories. Twenty local authority areas with public health teams active in licensing matters were recruited purposively in England (n = 14) and Scotland (n = 6) to vary by region and rurality. Fifty-three in-depth telephone interviews (28 with public health stakeholders and 25 with licensing stakeholders outside health, such as local authority licensing teams/lawyers or police) were conducted. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically in NVivo 12 (QSR International, Warrington, UK) using inductive and deductive approaches. Public health stakeholders’ approaches to engagement varied, falling into three main (and sometimes overlapping) types. (1) Many public health stakeholders in England and all public health stakeholders in Scotland took a ‘challenging’ approach to influencing licensing decisions and policies. Reducing health harms was felt to necessitate a focus on reducing availability and generating longer-term culture change, citing international evidence on the links between availability and alcohol-related harms. Some of these stakeholders viewed this as being a narrow, ‘nanny state’ approach, whereas others welcomed public health expertise and its evidence-based approach and input. (2) Some public health stakeholders favoured a more passive, ‘supportive’ approach, with some reporting that reducing availability was unachievable. They reported that, within the constraints of current licensing systems, alcohol availability may be contained (at least in theory) but cannot be reduced, because existing businesses cannot be closed on availability grounds. In this ‘supportive’ approach, public health stakeholders supplied licensing teams with data on request or waited for guidance from licensing teams on when and how to get involved. Therefore, public health action supported the licensing team in their aim of promoting ‘safe’ and ‘responsible’ retailing of alcohol and/or focused on short-term outcomes other than health, such as crime. (3) Some public health stakeholders favoured a ‘collaborative’ approach in which they worked in close partnership with licensing teams; this could include a focus on containing availability or responsible retail of alcohol, or both. In engaging with alcohol licensing, public health stakeholders adapted their approaches, sometimes resulting in a diminished focus on public health goals. Sampling did not include lower-activity areas, in which experiences might differ. The extent to which current licensing systems enable achievement of public health goals is questionable and the effectiveness of public health efforts merits quantitative evaluation. The study is registered with the Research Registry as researchregistry6162. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in Public Health Research. 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