Michael McGrath1, Joanna Reynolds2, Maria Smolar3, Sue Hare4, Margaret Ogden4, Jennie Popay5, Karen Lock6, Penny Cook7, Matt Egan8. 1. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK; Division of Psychiatry, University College London, 149 Tottenham Court Rd, London W1T 7BN, UK. Electronic address: michael.mgcgrath@lshtm.ac.uk. 2. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK; Department of Psychology, Sociology and Politics, Collegiate Crescent, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S10 2BP, UK. Electronic address: joanna.reynolds@shu.ac.uk. 3. Public Health England, Wellington House, 133-155 Waterloo Rd, London SE1 8UG, UK. Electronic address: maria.smolar@phe.gov.uk. 4. Public Contributor. 5. Department of Health Research, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4YW, UK. Electronic address: j.popay@lancaster.ac.uk. 6. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK. Electronic address: karen.lock@lshtm.ac.uk. 7. School of Health and Society, University of Salford, Mary Seacole Building, Frederick Road Campus, Salford M6 6PU, UK. Electronic address: p.a.cook@salford.ac.uk. 8. Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London WC1H 9SH, UK. Electronic address: m.egan@lshtm.ac.uk.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Engaging communities in actions to reduce alcohol harms has been identified as an international priority. While there exist recommendations for community engagement within alcohol licensing legislation, there is limited understanding of how to involve communities in local decision-making to reduce harms from the alcohol environment. METHODS: A scoping literature review was conducted on community engagement in local government decision-making with relevance to the alcohol environment. Academic and grey literature databases were searched between April and June 2018 to identify examples of community engagement in local government in the UK, published since 2000. Texts were excluded if they did not describe in detail the mechanisms or rationale for community engagement. Information was extracted and synthesised through a narrative approach. RESULTS: 3030 texts were identified through the searches, and 30 texts were included in the final review. Only one text described community engagement in alcohol decision-making (licensing); other local government sectors included planning, regeneration and community safety. Four rationales for community engagement emerged: statutory consultation processes; non-statutory engagement; as part of broader participatory initiatives; and community-led activism. While not all texts reported outcomes, a few described direct community influence on decisions. Broader outcomes included improved relationships between community groups and local government. However, lack of influence over decisions was also common, with multiple barriers to effective engagement identified. CONCLUSION: The lack of published examples of community engagement in local alcohol decision-making relevant to the UK suggests little priority has been placed on sharing learning about supporting engagement in this area. Taking a place-shaping perspective, useful lessons can be drawn from other areas of local government with relevance for the alcohol environment. Barriers to engagement must be considered carefully, particularly around how communities are defined, and how different interests toward the local alcohol environment are represented, or not.
INTRODUCTION: Engaging communities in actions to reduce alcohol harms has been identified as an international priority. While there exist recommendations for community engagement within alcohol licensing legislation, there is limited understanding of how to involve communities in local decision-making to reduce harms from the alcohol environment. METHODS: A scoping literature review was conducted on community engagement in local government decision-making with relevance to the alcohol environment. Academic and grey literature databases were searched between April and June 2018 to identify examples of community engagement in local government in the UK, published since 2000. Texts were excluded if they did not describe in detail the mechanisms or rationale for community engagement. Information was extracted and synthesised through a narrative approach. RESULTS: 3030 texts were identified through the searches, and 30 texts were included in the final review. Only one text described community engagement in alcohol decision-making (licensing); other local government sectors included planning, regeneration and community safety. Four rationales for community engagement emerged: statutory consultation processes; non-statutory engagement; as part of broader participatory initiatives; and community-led activism. While not all texts reported outcomes, a few described direct community influence on decisions. Broader outcomes included improved relationships between community groups and local government. However, lack of influence over decisions was also common, with multiple barriers to effective engagement identified. CONCLUSION: The lack of published examples of community engagement in local alcohol decision-making relevant to the UK suggests little priority has been placed on sharing learning about supporting engagement in this area. Taking a place-shaping perspective, useful lessons can be drawn from other areas of local government with relevance for the alcohol environment. Barriers to engagement must be considered carefully, particularly around how communities are defined, and how different interests toward the local alcohol environment are represented, or not.
Authors: Victoria Porthé; Irene García-Subirats; Carles Ariza; Joan Ramón Villalbí; Montse Bartroli; Olga Júarez; Elia Díez Journal: J Community Health Date: 2021-06
Authors: Jackie Shinwell; Ellen Finlay; Caitlin Allen; Margaret Anne Defeyter Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Cathy Ure; Elizabeth J Burns; Suzy C Hargreaves; Mira Hidajat; Margaret Coffey; Frank de Vocht; Suzanne Audrey; Sue Hare; Kate Ardern; Penny A Cook Journal: Int J Drug Policy Date: 2021-08-27
Authors: Cathy Ure; Liz Burns; Suzy C Hargreaves; Margaret Coffey; Suzanne Audrey; Kiran Kenth; Kate Ardern; Penny A Cook Journal: Perspect Public Health Date: 2020-03