Niamh Fitzgerald1, Kathryn Angus2, Carol Emslie3, Deborah Shipton4, Linda Bauld2. 1. Institute for Social Marketing, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, School of Health Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK. niamh.fitzgerald@stir.ac.uk. 2. Institute for Social Marketing, UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, School of Health Sciences, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK. 3. Institute for Applied Health Research, School of Health and Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK. 4. NHS Health Scotland, Glasgow, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Consistent review-level evidence supports the effectiveness of population-level alcohol policies in reducing alcohol-related harms. Such policies interact with well-established social, cultural and biological differences in how men and women perceive, relate to and use alcohol, and with wider inequalities, in ways which may give rise to gender differences in policy effectiveness. This paper aimed to examine the extent to which gender-specific data and analyses were considered in, and are available from, systematic reviews of population-level alcohol policy interventions, and where possible, to conduct a narrative synthesis of relevant data. METHODS: A prior systematic 'review of reviews' of population level alcohol interventions 2002-2012 was updated to May 2014, all gender-relevant data extracted, and the level and quality of gender reporting assessed. A narrative synthesis of extracted findings was conducted. RESULTS: Sixty-three systematic reviews, covering ten policy areas, were included. Five reviews (8%) consistently provided information on baseline participation by gender for each individual study in the review and twenty-nine (46%) reported some gender-specific information on the impact of the policies under consideration. Specific findings include evidence of possible gender differences in the impact of and exposure to alcohol marketing, and a failure to consider potential unintended consequences and harm to others in most reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Gender is poorly reported in systematic reviews of population-level interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm, hindering assessment of the intended and unintended effects of such policies on women and men.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Consistent review-level evidence supports the effectiveness of population-level alcohol policies in reducing alcohol-related harms. Such policies interact with well-established social, cultural and biological differences in how men and women perceive, relate to and use alcohol, and with wider inequalities, in ways which may give rise to gender differences in policy effectiveness. This paper aimed to examine the extent to which gender-specific data and analyses were considered in, and are available from, systematic reviews of population-level alcohol policy interventions, and where possible, to conduct a narrative synthesis of relevant data. METHODS: A prior systematic 'review of reviews' of population level alcohol interventions 2002-2012 was updated to May 2014, all gender-relevant data extracted, and the level and quality of gender reporting assessed. A narrative synthesis of extracted findings was conducted. RESULTS: Sixty-three systematic reviews, covering ten policy areas, were included. Five reviews (8%) consistently provided information on baseline participation by gender for each individual study in the review and twenty-nine (46%) reported some gender-specific information on the impact of the policies under consideration. Specific findings include evidence of possible gender differences in the impact of and exposure to alcohol marketing, and a failure to consider potential unintended consequences and harm to others in most reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Gender is poorly reported in systematic reviews of population-level interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm, hindering assessment of the intended and unintended effects of such policies on women and men.
Authors: Emily C Williams; Gwen T Lapham; Anna D Rubinsky; Laura J Chavez; Douglas Berger; Katharine A Bradley Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2017-07-19
Authors: Vivian Welch; Omar Dewidar; Elizabeth Tanjong Ghogomu; Salman Abdisalam; Abdulah Al Ameer; Victoria I Barbeau; Kevin Brand; Kisanet Kebedom; Maria Benkhalti; Elizabeth Kristjansson; Mohamad Tarek Madani; Alba M Antequera Martín; Christine M Mathew; Jessie McGowan; William McLeod; Hanbyoul Agatha Park; Jennifer Petkovic; Alison Riddle; Peter Tugwell; Mark Petticrew; Jessica Trawin; George A Wells Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-01-18
Authors: Niamh Fitzgerald; Matt Egan; Frank de Vocht; Colin Angus; James Nicholls; Niamh Shortt; Tim Nichols; Nason Maani Hessari; Cheryl McQuire; Richard Purves; Nathan Critchlow; Andrea Mohan; Laura Mahon; Colin Sumpter; Linda Bauld Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 4.615