Jason G Blanchette1, Marlene C Lira2, Timothy C Heeren3, Timothy S Naimi2,4. 1. Department of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Clinical Addiction Research and Education (CARE) Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Department of Biostatistics, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: U.S. policymakers and public health practitioners lack composite indicators (indices) to assess and compare the restrictiveness of state-level alcohol policy environments, conceptualized as the presence of multiple policies in effect in a particular place and time. The purposes of this study were to characterize the alcohol policy environment in each U.S. state and Washington, DC, in 2018, and to examine changes during the past 20 years. METHOD: State-specific Alcohol Policy Scale (APS) scores from 1999 to 2018 were based on 29 policies, after weighting each present policy by its efficacy and degree of implementation. Modified APS scores were also calculated on the basis of two sets of mutually exclusive policy subgroups. RESULTS: APS scores in 2018 varied considerably between states, ranging from 25.6 to 67.9 on a theoretical scale of 0 to 100; the median score was 43.5 (based on a 0-100 range), and 43 states had scores less than 50. The median change in state APS scores from 1999 to 2018 was positive (+4.9, range: -7.4 to +10.3), indicating increases in the restrictiveness of policy environments, with decreases in only five states. The increases in APS scores were primarily attributable to the implementation of stronger impaired-driving laws, whereas policies to reduce excessive drinking were unchanged. There was no correlation between states' excessive drinking policy scores and their impaired-driving scores (r = .05, p = .74). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this policy scale, few states have restrictive policy environments. Although states adopted policies targeting impaired driving during the study period, there was no change in policies to reduce excessive drinking.
OBJECTIVE: U.S. policymakers and public health practitioners lack composite indicators (indices) to assess and compare the restrictiveness of state-level alcohol policy environments, conceptualized as the presence of multiple policies in effect in a particular place and time. The purposes of this study were to characterize the alcohol policy environment in each U.S. state and Washington, DC, in 2018, and to examine changes during the past 20 years. METHOD: State-specific Alcohol Policy Scale (APS) scores from 1999 to 2018 were based on 29 policies, after weighting each present policy by its efficacy and degree of implementation. Modified APS scores were also calculated on the basis of two sets of mutually exclusive policy subgroups. RESULTS: APS scores in 2018 varied considerably between states, ranging from 25.6 to 67.9 on a theoretical scale of 0 to 100; the median score was 43.5 (based on a 0-100 range), and 43 states had scores less than 50. The median change in state APS scores from 1999 to 2018 was positive (+4.9, range: -7.4 to +10.3), indicating increases in the restrictiveness of policy environments, with decreases in only five states. The increases in APS scores were primarily attributable to the implementation of stronger impaired-driving laws, whereas policies to reduce excessive drinking were unchanged. There was no correlation between states' excessive drinking policy scores and their impaired-driving scores (r = .05, p = .74). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this policy scale, few states have restrictive policy environments. Although states adopted policies targeting impaired driving during the study period, there was no change in policies to reduce excessive drinking.
Authors: Scott E Hadland; Ziming Xuan; Vishnudas Sarda; Jason Blanchette; Monica H Swahn; Timothy C Heeren; Robert B Voas; Timothy S Naimi Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2017-02-13 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Jeffrey J Sacks; Katherine R Gonzales; Ellen E Bouchery; Laura E Tomedi; Robert D Brewer Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Randy W Elder; Briana Lawrence; Aneeqah Ferguson; Timothy S Naimi; Robert D Brewer; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Traci L Toomey; Jonathan E Fielding Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Toben F Nelson; Ziming Xuan; Thomas F Babor; Robert D Brewer; Frank J Chaloupka; Paul J Gruenewald; Harold Holder; Michael Klitzner; James F Mosher; Rebecca L Ramirez; Robert Reynolds; Traci L Toomey; Victoria Churchill; Timothy S Naimi Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Robert A Hahn; Jennifer L Kuzara; Randy Elder; Robert Brewer; Sajal Chattopadhyay; Jonathan Fielding; Timothy S Naimi; Traci Toomey; Jennifer Cook Middleton; Briana Lawrence Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Scott E Hadland; Ziming Xuan; Jason G Blanchette; Timothy C Heeren; Monica H Swahn; Timothy S Naimi Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Andrew G Bowen; Robert A Tessler; Deirdre Bowen; Miriam J Haviland; Ali Rowhani-Rahbar; Frederick P Rivara Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2020-12-22 Impact factor: 9.308