Comparing alcohol policy environments in high‐income jurisdictions with the International Alcohol Control Policy Index.
Saved in:
| Title: | Comparing alcohol policy environments in high‐income jurisdictions with the International Alcohol Control Policy Index. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Casswell, Sally (AUTHOR), Randerson, Steve (AUTHOR), Parker, Karl (AUTHOR), Huckle, Taisia (AUTHOR), Callinan, Sarah (AUTHOR), Campbell, Orfhlaith (AUTHOR), Karlsson, Thomas (AUTHOR), Rossow, Ingeborg (AUTHOR), Shorter, Gillian (AUTHOR), Štelemėkas, Mindaugas (AUTHOR), Vallance, Kate (AUTHOR), van Dalen, Wim (AUTHOR), Wettlaufer, Ashley (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | Drug & Alcohol Review. Mar2025, Vol. 44 Issue 3, p881-890. 10p. |
| Subjects: | Government policy, Drunk driving, Communication policy, Economic policy, Policy analysis, Jurisdiction, Liquor laws |
| Geographic Terms: | New Zealand, Norway, Lithuania |
| Abstract: | Introduction: Considerable evidence exists on the most effective policy to reduce alcohol harm; however, a tool and index to allow comparisons of policy status of the most effective policies between similar jurisdictions and change over time within a jurisdiction has not been widely used. The International Alcohol Control (IAC) Policy Index is designed to address this gap and monitor the alcohol policy environment with regard to four effective policy domains (tax/pricing, availability, marketing and drink driving). Methods: This study compares IAC Policy Index scores across 11 high‐income jurisdictions: Aotearoa (Māori language name for New Zealand); Australia; Finland; Norway; the Netherlands; (Republic of Ireland; Lithuania; Ontario; Alberta; Quebec; British Columbia). Collaborators in the 11 high‐income jurisdictions populated the online Alcohol Policy Tool with available indicators. The team in Aotearoa New Zealand sought to validate information and worked with collaborators to clarify any uncertainties in the data. Results: Lithuania, Norway, Finland and Ireland scored above average on the IAC Policy Index. The jurisdictions varied in terms of the strength of policy in different domains, with drink driving legislation showing the greatest consistency and marketing the strongest relationship between stringency of policy and impact on the ground. Discussion and Conclusions: Results in high‐income jurisdictions suggested the IAC Policy Index provides a useful overview of core alcohol policy status, allows for comparisons between jurisdictions and has the potential to be useful in alcohol policy debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Drug & Alcohol Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell 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: | Introduction: Considerable evidence exists on the most effective policy to reduce alcohol harm; however, a tool and index to allow comparisons of policy status of the most effective policies between similar jurisdictions and change over time within a jurisdiction has not been widely used. The International Alcohol Control (IAC) Policy Index is designed to address this gap and monitor the alcohol policy environment with regard to four effective policy domains (tax/pricing, availability, marketing and drink driving). Methods: This study compares IAC Policy Index scores across 11 high‐income jurisdictions: Aotearoa (Māori language name for New Zealand); Australia; Finland; Norway; the Netherlands; (Republic of Ireland; Lithuania; Ontario; Alberta; Quebec; British Columbia). Collaborators in the 11 high‐income jurisdictions populated the online Alcohol Policy Tool with available indicators. The team in Aotearoa New Zealand sought to validate information and worked with collaborators to clarify any uncertainties in the data. Results: Lithuania, Norway, Finland and Ireland scored above average on the IAC Policy Index. The jurisdictions varied in terms of the strength of policy in different domains, with drink driving legislation showing the greatest consistency and marketing the strongest relationship between stringency of policy and impact on the ground. Discussion and Conclusions: Results in high‐income jurisdictions suggested the IAC Policy Index provides a useful overview of core alcohol policy status, allows for comparisons between jurisdictions and has the potential to be useful in alcohol policy debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09595236 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/dar.14020 |
