AIMS: To examine state alcohol control policy implementation by policy efficacy and intent. DESIGN: A descriptive longitudinal analysis of policy implementation. SETTING: The United States, 1999-2011. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty states and the District of Columbia. MEASUREMENTS: Twenty-nine state-level policies were rated based on an implementation rating (IR; range = 0.0-1.0) gathered from the Alcohol Policy Information System, government and industry reports and other sources; and expert judgment about policy efficacy for addressing binge drinking and alcohol-impaired driving among the general population and youth, respectively. FINDINGS: On average, implementation of the most effective general population policies did not change [mean IR = 0.366 in 1999; 0.375 in 2011; slope for annual change = 0.001; 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope -0.001, 0.002]. In contrast, implementation increased over time for less effective policies (mean IR = 0.287 in 1999; 0.427 in 2011; slope for annual change compared with most effective policies = 0.009; slope 95% CI = 0.002-0.007), for youth-oriented policies (mean IR = 0.424 in 1999; 0.511 in 2011; slope for annual change compared with most effective policies = 0.007; slope 95% CI = 0.005-0.009), and for impaired driving policies (mean IR = 0.493 in 1999; 0.608 in 2011; slope for annual change compared with most effective policies = 0.0105; slope 95% CI = 0.007-0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of politically palatable state alcohol policies, such as those targeting youth and alcohol-impaired driving, and less effective policies increased during 1999-2011 in the United States, while the most effective policies that may maximally protect public health remained underused.
AIMS: To examine state alcohol control policy implementation by policy efficacy and intent. DESIGN: A descriptive longitudinal analysis of policy implementation. SETTING: The United States, 1999-2011. PARTICIPANTS: Fifty states and the District of Columbia. MEASUREMENTS: Twenty-nine state-level policies were rated based on an implementation rating (IR; range = 0.0-1.0) gathered from the Alcohol Policy Information System, government and industry reports and other sources; and expert judgment about policy efficacy for addressing binge drinking and alcohol-impaired driving among the general population and youth, respectively. FINDINGS: On average, implementation of the most effective general population policies did not change [mean IR = 0.366 in 1999; 0.375 in 2011; slope for annual change = 0.001; 95% confidence interval (CI) for the slope -0.001, 0.002]. In contrast, implementation increased over time for less effective policies (mean IR = 0.287 in 1999; 0.427 in 2011; slope for annual change compared with most effective policies = 0.009; slope 95% CI = 0.002-0.007), for youth-oriented policies (mean IR = 0.424 in 1999; 0.511 in 2011; slope for annual change compared with most effective policies = 0.007; slope 95% CI = 0.005-0.009), and for impaired driving policies (mean IR = 0.493 in 1999; 0.608 in 2011; slope for annual change compared with most effective policies = 0.0105; slope 95% CI = 0.007-0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of politically palatable state alcohol policies, such as those targeting youth and alcohol-impaired driving, and less effective policies increased during 1999-2011 in the United States, while the most effective policies that may maximally protect public health remained underused.
Authors: Carla Alexia Campbell; Robert A Hahn; Randy Elder; Robert Brewer; Sajal Chattopadhyay; Jonathan Fielding; Timothy S Naimi; Traci Toomey; Briana Lawrence; Jennifer Cook Middleton Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Timothy S Naimi; Jason Blanchette; Toben F Nelson; Thien Nguyen; Nadia Oussayef; Timothy C Heeren; Paul Gruenewald; James Mosher; Ziming Xuan Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Veda Rammohan; Robert A Hahn; Randy Elder; Robert Brewer; Jonathan Fielding; Timothy S Naimi; Traci L Toomey; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Carlos Zometa Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Ziming Xuan; Toben F Nelson; Timothy Heeren; Jason Blanchette; David E Nelson; Paul Gruenewald; Timothy S Naimi Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Brian J Fairman; Bruce G Simons-Morton; Denise L Haynie; Danping Liu; Risë B Goldstein; Ralph W Hingson; Stephen E Gilman Journal: Addiction Date: 2019-04-12 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Timothy S Naimi; Ziming Xuan; Vishnudas Sarda; Scott E Hadland; Marlene C Lira; Monica H Swahn; Robert B Voas; Timothy C Heeren Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Matthew E Rossheim; Dennis L Thombs; Alexander C Wagenaar; Ziming Xuan; Subhash Aryal Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Thomas K Greenfield; Won K Cook; Katherine J Karriker-Jaffe; Deidre Patterson; William C Kerr; Ziming Xuan; Timothy S Naimi Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Ziming Xuan; Frank J Chaloupka; Jason G Blanchette; Thien H Nguyen; Timothy C Heeren; Toben F Nelson; Timothy S Naimi Journal: Addiction Date: 2014-12-28 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Marlene C Lira; Vishnudas Sarda; Timothy C Heeren; Matthew Miller; Timothy S Naimi Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-03-16 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: S Jane Henley; Cheryll C Thomas; Denise Riedel Lewis; Elizabeth M Ward; Farhad Islami; Manxia Wu; Hannah K Weir; Susan Scott; Recinda L Sherman; Jiemin Ma; Betsy A Kohler; Kathleen Cronin; Ahmedin Jemal; Vicki B Benard; Lisa C Richardson Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-03-12 Impact factor: 6.921