Dataset Information

Evaluating possible intended and unintended consequences of the implementation of alcohol minimum unit pricing (MUP) in Scotland: a natural experiment protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Scotland is the first country to carry out a national implementation of minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol. MUP aims to reduce alcohol-related harms, which are high in Scotland compared with Western Europe, and to improve health equalities. MUP is a minimum retail price per unit of alcohol. That approach targets high-risk alcohol users. This work is key to a wider evaluation that will determine whether MUP continues. There are three study components.

Methods and analysis

Component 1 sampled an estimated 2800 interviewees at a baseline and each of two follow-ups from four Emergency Departments in Scotland and Northern England. Research nurses administered a standardised survey to assess alcohol consumption and the proportion of attendances that were alcohol-related.Component 2 covered six Sexual Health Clinics with similar timings and country allocation. A self-completion survey gathered information on potential unintended effects of MUP on alcohol source and drug use.Using a natural experiment design and repeated cross-sectional audit, difference between Scotland (intervention) and North England (control) will be tested for outcomes using regression adjusting for differences at baseline. Differential impacts by age, gender and socioeconomic position will be investigated.Component 3 used focus groups with young people and heavy drinkers and interviews with stakeholders before and after MUP implementation. The focus groups will allow exploration of attitudes, experiences and behaviours and the potential mechanisms by which impacts arise. The interviews will help characterise the implementation process.

Ethics and dissemination

Study components 1 and 2 have been ethically approved by the NHS, and component 3 by the University of Stirling. Dissemination plans include peer-reviewed journal articles, presentations, policy maker briefings and, in view of high public interest and the high political profile of this flagship policy, communication with the public via media engagement and plain language summaries.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN16039407; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Katikireddi SV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6596978 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The majority of patients desire all available prognostic information, but some physicians hesitate to discuss prognosis. The objective of the current study was to examine outcomes of prognostic disclosure among the parents of children with cancer. METHODS:The authors surveyed 353 parents of children with newly diagnosed cancer at 2 tertiary cancer centers, and each child's oncologist. Using multivariable logistic regression, the authors assessed associations between parental report of elements of prognosis discussions with the oncologist (quality of information/communication and prognostic disclosure) and potential consequences of these discussions (trust, hope, peace of mind, prognostic understanding, depression, and anxiety). Analyses were stratified by oncologist-reported prognosis. RESULTS:Prognostic disclosure was not found to be associated with increased parental anxiety, depression, or decreased hope. Among the parents of children with less favorable prognoses (<75% chance of cure), the receipt of high-quality information from the oncologist was associated with greater peace of mind (odds ratio [OR], 5.23; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.81-15.16) and communication-related hope (OR, 2.54; 95% CI, 1.00-6.40). High-quality oncologist communication style was associated with greater trust in the physician (OR, 2.45; 95% CI, 1.09-5.48) and hope (OR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.26-7.19). Accurate prognostic understanding was less common among the parents of children with less favorable prognoses (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.17-0.88). Receipt of high-quality information, high-quality communication, and prognostic disclosure were not found to be significantly associated with more accurate prognostic understanding. CONCLUSIONS:The results of the current study demonstrate no evidence that disclosure is associated with anxiety, depression, or decreased hope. Communication processes may increase peace of mind, trust, and hope. It remains unclear how best to enhance prognostic understanding. Cancer 2018;124:1232-41. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the impact of minimum unit pricing (MUP) on the primary outcome of alcohol-related hospitalisation, and secondary outcomes of length of stay, hospital mortality and alcohol-related liver disease in hospital.DesignDatabases MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, APA Psycinfo, CINAHL Plus and Cochrane Reviews were searched from 1 January 2011 to 11 November 2022. Inclusion criteria were studies evaluating the impact of minimum pricing policies, and we excluded non-minimum pricing policies or studies without alcohol-related hospital outcomes. The Effective Public Health Practice Project tool was used to assess risk of bias, and the Bradford Hill Criteria were used to infer causality for outcome measures.SettingMUP sets a legally required floor price per unit of alcohol and is estimated to reduce alcohol-attributable healthcare burden.ParticipantAll studies meeting inclusion criteria from any country INTERVENTION: Minimum pricing policy of alcohol PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: RESULTS: 22 studies met inclusion criteria; 6 natural experiments and 16 modelling studies. Countries included Australia, Canada, England, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Scotland, South Africa and Wales. Modelling studies estimated that MUP could reduce alcohol-related admissions by 3%-10% annually and the majority of real-world studies demonstrated that acute alcohol-related admissions responded immediately and reduced by 2%-9%, and chronic alcohol-related admissions lagged by 2-3 years and reduced by 4%-9% annually. Minimum pricing could target the heaviest consumers from the most deprived groups who tend to be at greatest risk of alcohol harms, and in so doing has the potential to reduce health inequalities. Using the Bradford Hill Criteria, we inferred a 'moderate-to-strong' causal link that MUP could reduce alcohol-related hospitalisation.ConclusionsNatural studies were consistent with minimum pricing modelling studies and showed that this policy could reduce alcohol-related hospitalisation and health inequalities.Prospero registration numberCRD42021274023.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral countries are considering a minimum price policy for alcohol, but concerns exist about the potential effects on drinkers with low incomes. We aimed to assess the effect of a £0·45 minimum unit price (1 unit is 8 g/10 mL ethanol) in England across the income and socioeconomic distributions.MethodsWe used the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model (SAPM) version 2.6, a causal, deterministic, epidemiological model, to assess effects of a minimum unit price policy. SAPM accounts for alcohol purchasing and consumption preferences for population subgroups including income and socioeconomic groups. Purchasing preferences are regarded as the types and volumes of alcohol beverages, prices paid, and the balance between on-trade (eg, bars) and off-trade (eg, shops). We estimated price elasticities from 9 years of survey data and did sensitivity analyses with alternative elasticities. We assessed effects of the policy on moderate, hazardous, and harmful drinkers, split into three socioeconomic groups (living in routine or manual households, intermediate households, and managerial or professional households). We examined policy effects on alcohol consumption, spending, rates of alcohol-related health harm, and opportunity costs associated with that harm. Rates of harm and costs were estimated for a 10 year period after policy implementation. We adjusted baseline rates of mortality and morbidity to account for differential risk between socioeconomic groups.FindingsOverall, a minimum unit price of £0.45 led to an immediate reduction in consumption of 1.6% (-11.7 units per drinker per year) in our model. Moderate drinkers were least affected in terms of consumption (-3.8 units per drinker per year for the lowest income quintile vs 0.8 units increase for the highest income quintile) and spending (increase in spending of £0.04 vs £1.86 per year). The greatest behavioural changes occurred in harmful drinkers (change in consumption of -3.7% or -138.2 units per drinker per year, with a decrease in spending of £4.01), especially in the lowest income quintile (-7.6% or -299.8 units per drinker per year, with a decrease in spending of £34.63) compared with the highest income quintile (-1.0% or -34.3 units, with an increase in spending of £16.35). Estimated health benefits from the policy were also unequally distributed. Individuals in the lowest socioeconomic group (living in routine or manual worker households and comprising 41.7% of the sample population) would accrue 81.8% of reductions in premature deaths and 87.1% of gains in terms of quality-adjusted life-years.InterpretationIrrespective of income, moderate drinkers were little affected by a minimum unit price of £0.45 in our model, with the greatest effects noted for harmful drinkers. Because harmful drinkers on low incomes purchase more alcohol at less than the minimum unit price threshold compared with other groups, they would be affected most by this policy. Large reductions in consumption in this group would however coincide with substantial health gains in terms of morbidity and mortality related to reduced alcohol consumption.FundingUK Medical Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council (grant G1000043).

Project description:Background and aimsMinimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol was introduced in Scotland on 1 May 2018, and is now on the policy agenda in other devolved administrations and at Westminster. Previous research has explored the arguments deployed for and against MUP, but the congruence between actors in the MUP debate has not been sufficiently examined. This study identified and mapped the discourse coalitions that emerged in the UK MUP debate through an analysis of actors' use of arguments in media coverage of the policy debates.DesignA sample of print media coverage of MUP was obtained from the LexisNexis newspaper database. The resulting sample was imported into discourse network analysis (DNA) software for coding and subsequent visualization of actor networks.SettingUnited Kingdom.ObservationsA total of 348 articles from eight UK-wide and three Scottish newspapers from an 18-month period, ending in November 2012, were analysed.MeasurementsActors' arguments were coded to generate structured data for conversion into a weighted actor network where ties represent similarities among actors in terms of arguments in support of or opposition to MUP.FindingsTwo polarized discourse coalitions, Opponents and Proponents of MUP, emerged in media coverage. The Proponents coalition consisted mainly of health advocacy groups, charities, political parties and academic institutions. In the Opponents coalition, the networks were formed of key alcohol manufacturers and economic think-tanks. While producer organizations were central to the Opponents coalition, some commercial actors were more favourable to MUP, highlighting divisions within the industry overall.ConclusionsMedia coverage of minimum unit pricing (MUP) in Scotland from June 2011 to November 2012 showed alignment between the policy positions of (1) alcohol producers and think-tanks opposed to MUP; and (2) public health advocates and health charities in favour of the policy. Some alcohol industry actors were supportive of MUP indicating divisions among the industry. Discourse network analysis may be usefully applied to study other highly contested policy issues in health and beyond.