Transcript Document
Effectiveness of Interventions and Alcohol Policies: What Works, What Doesn’t Thomas F. Babor Alcohol, No Ordinary Commodity: Research and Public Policy Sponsored by: The World Health Organization and The Society for the Study of Addiction (UK) The findings and conclusions represent the consensus views of its 15 authors, none of whom received either direct or indirect support for their participation from the sponsoring organizations or any other organization that might represent a conflict of interest. The Alcohol Public Policy Group Co-authors Thomas Babor Raul Caetano Sally Casswell Griffith Edwards Norman Giesbrecht Kathryn Graham Joel Grube Paul Gruenewald Linda Hill Harold Holder Ross Homel Esa Österberg Jürgen Rehm Robin Room Ingeborg Rossow University of Connecticut (USA) University of Texas (USA) Massey University (New Zealand) National Addiction Centre (United Kingdom) University of Toronto (Canada) Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (Canada) University of California (USA) University of California (USA) University of Auckland (New Zealand) University of California (USA) Griffith University (Australia) Institute for Social Research (Finland) University of Toronto (Canada) Stockholm University (Sweden) National Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research (Norway) ALCOHOL: NO ORDINARY COMMODITY • The benefits connected with the production, sale, and use of this commodity come at an enormous cost to society. • Three important mechanisms explain alcohol’s ability to cause medical, psychological, and social harm: 1) physical toxicity 2) intoxication 3) dependence Prevention Strategies Reviewed and Evaluated • • • • • • • Regulating Physical Availability Pricing and Taxation Altering the Drinking Context Education and Persuasion Regulating Alcohol Promotion Drinking-Driving Countermeasures Treatment and Early Intervention Ratings of 32 Policy-relevant Prevention Strategies and Interventions 1) Evidence of Effectiveness – the quality of scientific information 2) Breadth of Research Support – quantity and consistency of the evidence 3) Tested Across Cultures, e.,g. countries, regions, subgroups 4) Cost to Implement and Sustain – monetary and other costs aRating Scale: 0, +, ++, +++, (?) b Rating Scale: Low, Moderate, High Evaluation Standards: Other Considerations • Target Group – the general population of drinkers (and nondrinkers) – high risk drinkers or vulnerable groups – persons with harmful drinking and alcohol dependence • Adverse side effects – tax evasion – criminal activity – illicit production • Population reach – number of people affected by intervention • Feasibility – political considerations – economic implications – side effects Taxation Strategy or Intervention Alcohol Taxes Effectiveness +++ XResearch Cultural Support Testing +++ +++ Cost Low Target Group General Population Pricing and Taxation Evidence suggests that: • People increase their drinking when prices are lowered, and decrease their consumption when prices rise. • Heavy or problem drinkers are no exception to this rule. • Increased alcoholic beverage taxes and prices are related to reductions in alcohol-related problems. Alcohol taxes are thus an attractive instrument of alcohol policy because they can be used both to generate direct revenue and to reduce alcohol-related harm. The most important downside to raising alcohol taxes is smuggling and illegal in-country alcohol production. Regulating Physical Availability Strategy or Intervention Total ban on sales XEffectiveness Research Cultural Support Testing +++ +++ ++ Cost Target Group High General Population High Risk Group General Population General Population Minimum legal purchase age Rationing +++ +++ ++ Low ++ ++ ++ High Government monopoly of retail sales Hours and days of sale restrictions Restrictions on density of outlets Server liability +++ +++ ++ Low ++ ++ ++ Low ++ +++ ++ Low +++ + + Low Different availability by alcohol strength ++ ++ + Low General Population General Population High Risk Group General Population Regulating the Alcohol Availability • • • Changes in availability can have large effects in nations or communities where there is popular support for these measures. The cost of restricting alcohol availability is cheap relative to the costs of health consequences related to drinking, especially heavy drinking. The most notable adverse effects of availability restrictions include increases in informal market activities (e.g., home production, illegal imports). Modifying the Drinking Context XStrategy or Effective- Research Cultural Intervention ness Support Testing Outlet policy to not + +++ ++ serve intoxicated patrons Training bar staff + + + and managers to prevent and better manage aggression Voluntary codes of O + + bar practice Enforcement of on++ + ++ premise regulations and legal requirements Community ++ ++ + mobilization Cost Target Group Moderate High Risk Group Moderate High Risk Group Low High Risk Group High Risk Group High High General Population Modifying the Drinking Context Many prevention measures seek to limit drinking in the contexts or environments where alcohol is typically sold and consumed (e.g., bars and restaurants). The most effective options involve: • enforcement of serving regulations • increasing the legal liability of bar staff and owners for the actions of those they serve. Responsible Beverage Service (RBS) programs • Focus on attitudes, knowledge, skills, and practices of persons involved in serving alcoholic beverages on licensed premises • If supported by actual changes in the serving policies of licensed establishments and reinforced by local police, RBS training can reduce heavy consumption and high risk drinking Community Mobilization • Raise public awareness of problems associated with onpremise drinking in licensed establishments • Develop specific solutions to problems • Pressure owners to recognize that they have a responsibility to the community in terms of such barrelated issues as noise level and patron behavior • Can be highly successful at reducing aggression and other problems related to drinking in licensed premises, but the long-term sustainability of these efforts remains to be demonstrated. Drinking-Driving Countermeasures Strategy or Intervention Sobriety check points Random breath testing (RBT) Lowered BAC Limits Administrative license suspension Low BAC for young drivers (“zero tolerance”) Graduated licensing for novice drivers Designated drivers and ride services Effectiveness ++ Research Support +++ XCultural Testing +++ +++ ++ + Moderate +++ +++ ++ Low ++ ++ ++ Moderate +++ ++ + Low High Risk Group ++ ++ ++ Low High Risk Group O + + Moderate High Risk Group Cost Target Group Moderate General Population General Population General Population Harmful Drinkers Drinking-Driving Countermeasures • Consistently produce long-term problem reductions of between 5% and 30%. • Deterrence-based approaches, using innovations such as Random Breath Testing, yield few arrests but substantial accident reductions. • The persistent delinquency of some impaired drivers should not detract from the enormous achievements of recent decades. Random Breath Testing (RBT) • Motorists are stopped at random by police and required to take a preliminary breath test, even if they are in no way suspected of having committed an offence or been involved in an accident. • Highly visible, non-selective testing can have a sustained effect in reducing drinking-driving and the associated crashes, injuries, and deaths. BAC Limits • When combined with enforcement, national and state laws lowering the legal limit of the driver’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) have been a successful way to reduce drinking-driving. • The evidence indicates that setting a reasonably low level of BAC (e.g., .08) significantly reduces alcohol-related driving fatalities. Young drivers • Adolescents aged between 16-20 years are at higher risk for alcohol-involved crashes as a result of their limited driving experience and their tendency to experiment with heavy or binge drinking. • Traditional countermeasures such as driver training and school-based education programs are either ineffective or have yielded mixed results. • One effective measure is the use of graduated licensing for novice drivers, which limits the time and other conditions of driving during the first few years of licensing. Treatment programs as an alternative to punishment • Evidence from some countries supports the effectiveness of comprehensive treatment including counseling or therapy plus license suspension in reducing recidivism. • Successful programs are well structured, go beyond information provision to address alcohol abuse, are conducted for more than ten weeks, and have rules of attendance enforced by a court. Education and Persuasion Strategy or Intervention Alcohol education in schools College student education Public service messages Warning labels Effectiveness O XResearch Cultural Support Testing +++ ++ O + + O +++ ++ O + + Cost High High Target Group High Risk Group High Risk Group Moderate General Population Low General Population Education and Persuasion Strategies • School-based alcohol education programs have been found to increase knowledge and change attitudes toward alcohol and other substances, but actual substance use remains unaffected. • Approaches that address values clarification, self-esteem, general social skills, and “alternatives” approaches that provide activities inconsistent with alcohol use (e.g., sports) are equally ineffective. • Programs that include both resistance skills training and normative education (which attempts to correct adolescents’ tendency to overestimate the number of their peers who drink) have modest effects that are short-lived unless accompanied by ongoing booster sessions. • Programs that include both individual-level education and family- or community-level interventions may not be sufficient to delay the initiation of drinking, or to sustain a small reduction in drinking beyond the operation of the program. Education and Persuasion Strategies Public service announcements (PSAs) • Messages prepared by nongovernmental organizations, health agencies, and media organizations that deal with responsible drinking, the hazards of drinking-driving, and related topics. • Despite their good intentions, PSAs are an ineffective antidote to the high-quality prodrinking messages that appear much more frequently as paid advertisements in the mass media. Education and Persuasion Strategies Counter-advertising • Disseminating information about a product, its effects, and the industry that promotes it, in order to decrease its appeal and use. • Tactics include health-warning labels on product packaging, such as those that explain that alcohol may cause birth defects when consumed during pregnancy. • Although a significant proportion of the population reports seeing these warning labels, research indicates that exposure produces no change in drinking behavior per se. Summary: Education and Persuasion Strategies • The impact of education and persuasion programs tends to be small at best. • When positive effects are found, they do not persist. • Among the hundreds of studies, only two show significant lasting effects (after 3 years), and the significance of these is questionable when reanalyzed (Foxcroft et al. 2003). • The time is past for arguments on behalf of substituting education for other, more effective approaches. • If educational approaches are to be used, they should be implemented within the framework of broader environmental interventions that address availability of alcohol. Regulating Alcohol Promotion Strategy or EffectiveIntervention ness Advertising + bans Advertising ? content controls Research Support + XCultural Testing ++ O O Cost Low Moderate Target Group General Population General Population Regulating alcohol promotion • The marketing of alcohol is a global industry. • Alcohol brands are advertised through television, radio, print, point-of-sale promotions, and the Internet. • Exposure to repeated high-level alcohol promotion inculcates pro-drinking attitudes and increases the likelihood of heavier drinking. • Alcohol advertising predisposes minors to drinking well before legal age of purchase. • Advertising has been found to promote and reinforce perceptions of drinking as positive, glamorous, and relatively risk-free. Regulating alcohol promotion Legislation restricting alcohol advertising • A well-established precaution used by governments throughout the world, despite opposition from the alcoholic beverage industry. • Findings suggest that while the restrictions have not achieved a major reduction in drinking and related harms in the short-term, countries with greater restrictions on advertising have less drinking and fewer alcohol-related problems (Saffer, 1991). Regulating alcohol promotion Industry Self-regulation Codes • Self-regulation tends to be fragile and largely ineffective. • These codes may work best where the media, advertising, and alcohol industries are all involved, and an independent body has powers to approve or veto advertisements, rule on complaints, and impose sanctions. • Few countries currently have all these components. Treatment and Early Intervention Strategy or Intervention Brief intervention with at-risk drinkers Alcohol problems treatment Mutual help/selfhelp attendance Mandatory treatment of repeat drinkingdrivers Effectiveness ++ Research Support +++ XCultural Testing +++ + +++ +++ High Harmful Drinkers + + ++ Low Harmful Drinkers + ++ + Moderate Harmful Drinkers Cost Moderate Target Group High Risk Group Treatment and Early Intervention Services • In general, exposure to any treatment is associated with significant reductions in alcohol use and related problems, regardless of the type of intervention used. • Regarding specific treatment modalities, the weight of evidence suggests that behavioral treatments are likely to be more effective than insight-oriented therapies Brief interventions • Consist of one to three sessions of counseling or advice delivered in general medical settings. • Randomized controlled trials (conducted in a variety of settings) indicate that clinically significant changes in drinking behavior and related problems can follow from brief interventions with non-alcoholic heavy drinkers. Best Practices • Minimum legal purchase age • Government monopoly of retail sales • Restriction on hours or days of sale • Outlet density restrictions • Alcohol taxes • Sobriety check points • Lowered BAC limits • Administrative license suspension • Graduated licensing for novice drivers • Brief interventions for hazardous drinkers Least Effective Practices • Voluntary codes of bar practice • Promoting alcoholfree activities • Alcohol education in schools • College student education • Public service messages • Warning labels • Designated drivers and ride services Evolving Views of Alcohol Policy: Optimism • Opportunities for effective, evidence-based alcohol policies are more available than ever to better serve the public good. • Alcohol policies that limit access to alcoholic beverages, increase the price of alcohol, and enforce laws and regulations through deterrence, are likely to reduce the harm linked to specific drinking patterns and per capita consumption. • Alcohol problems can be minimized or prevented using a coordinated, systematic policy response. CONCLUSIONS • The difference between good and bad alcohol policy is not an abstraction, but very often a matter of life and death. • Research has the capacity to indicate which strategies are likely to succeed in their public health intentions, and which are likely to be less effective or even useless, diversionary, and a waste of resources. • Opportunities for evidence-based alcohol policies that better serve the public good are more available than ever. • There are still too many instances of policy vacuums filled by unevaluated or ineffective strategies and interventions. • Because alcohol is no ordinary commodity, the public has a right to expect a more enlightened, evidence-based approach to alcohol policy.