Discrepancies in Local, State, and National Alcohol Outlet Listings: Implications for Research and Interventions.
Saved in:
| Title: | Discrepancies in Local, State, and National Alcohol Outlet Listings: Implications for Research and Interventions. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Milam, Adam J. (AUTHOR), Barajas, Clara B. (AUTHOR), Buchalski, Zachary (AUTHOR), Wang, Ling (AUTHOR), Sadler, Richard C. (AUTHOR), Furr-Holden, C. Debra M. (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Substance Use & Misuse. 2020, Vol. 55 Issue 14, p2348-2356. 9p. 5 Charts, 1 Graph, 1 Map. |
| Subjects: | Convenience stores, Ethanol, Policy sciences, Poverty, Residential patterns |
| Geographic Terms: | Maryland, Oregon, Wisconsin |
| Abstract: | The availability of local, state, and national data on alcohol outlet density have important implications for policies and interventions aiming to reduce alcohol-related problems. High-quality data on locations of alcohol outlets is important to accurately inform community interventions and public health initiatives, but such data is often not maintained, readily available, or of sufficient quality. Objectives: This study aims to examine the discrepancies between alcohol outlet databases and how neighborhood characteristics (i.e. income, majority racial population, urbanicity) are associated with the discrepancies between databases. Methods: Data was collected from national (n = 1), local (n = 2), and state databases (n = 3). Negative binomial regression models were used to assess discrepancies in alcohol outlet count at the ZIP code level based on the data source. Results: The average density of alcohol outlets (per 1000 residents) ranged from 0.71 to 2.17 in Maryland, 1.65 to 5.17 in Wisconsin, and 1.09 to 1.22 in Oregon based on different sources of data. Findings suggest high income areas (>200% poverty level) have fewer discrepancies (IR = 0.775, p < 0.01), low income areas (below poverty level) have greater discrepancies (IR = 4.990, p < 0.01), and urban areas tend to have fewer discrepancies (IR = 0.378, p < 0.01) between datasets. Conclusion: Interventions and policies depend on valid and reliable data; researchers, policymakers, and local agencies need to collaborate to develop methods to maintain accurate and accessible data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Substance Use & Misuse is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The availability of local, state, and national data on alcohol outlet density have important implications for policies and interventions aiming to reduce alcohol-related problems. High-quality data on locations of alcohol outlets is important to accurately inform community interventions and public health initiatives, but such data is often not maintained, readily available, or of sufficient quality. Objectives: This study aims to examine the discrepancies between alcohol outlet databases and how neighborhood characteristics (i.e. income, majority racial population, urbanicity) are associated with the discrepancies between databases. Methods: Data was collected from national (n = 1), local (n = 2), and state databases (n = 3). Negative binomial regression models were used to assess discrepancies in alcohol outlet count at the ZIP code level based on the data source. Results: The average density of alcohol outlets (per 1000 residents) ranged from 0.71 to 2.17 in Maryland, 1.65 to 5.17 in Wisconsin, and 1.09 to 1.22 in Oregon based on different sources of data. Findings suggest high income areas (>200% poverty level) have fewer discrepancies (IR = 0.775, p < 0.01), low income areas (below poverty level) have greater discrepancies (IR = 4.990, p < 0.01), and urban areas tend to have fewer discrepancies (IR = 0.378, p < 0.01) between datasets. Conclusion: Interventions and policies depend on valid and reliable data; researchers, policymakers, and local agencies need to collaborate to develop methods to maintain accurate and accessible data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 10826084 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/10826084.2020.1817080 |
