Erin Hobin1,2, Simran Shokar3, Kate Vallance4, David Hammond5, Jonathan McGavock6, Thomas K Greenfield7, Nour Schoueri-Mychasiw3, Catherine Paradis8, Tim Stockwell4. 1. Public Health Ontario, 480 University Ave, Suite 300, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V2, Canada. Erin.Hobin@oahpp.ca. 2. Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Erin.Hobin@oahpp.ca. 3. Public Health Ontario, 480 University Ave, Suite 300, Toronto, ON, M5G 1V2, Canada. 4. Canadian Institute for Substance Use Research, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. 5. School of Public Health and Health Systems, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. 6. Children's Hospital Research Institute of Manitoba, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. 7. Alcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, Emeryville, CA, USA. 8. Canadian Centre for Substance Use and Addiction, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test whether alcohol labels with a cancer warning and national drinking guidelines are an effective tool for supporting more informed and safer alcohol consumption among drinkers. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental design, pre-post surveys were conducted with 1647 cohort participants systematically selected in liquor stores in two matched sites in Canada in 2017-2018. Enhanced labels designed according to best practices for effective product labels were applied to alcohol containers in the liquor store in the intervention site for one month, and usual practice continued in the comparison site. Generalized estimating equations tested the differences between sites over time in label salience and processing, and self-reported impact of the labels on drinking behaviours. RESULTS: After the intervention, recall of the cancer warning label increased to a greater extent in the intervention versus comparison site (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 32.2, 95% CI = 5.4, 191.1), but not the national drinking guideline label (AOR = 2.7, 95% CI = 0.2, 31.8). There were significant label effects in the intervention versus comparison site for reading (AOR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.3, 2.5), thinking about (AOR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.4, 2.9), and talking with others about (AOR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.3, 3.6) the labels, as well as self-reported impact to cut down on drinking (AOR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.3, 4.7) and to drink less (AOR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.3, 4.3). CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol labels with a cancer warning and national drinking guidelines do a better job conveying risk information and promoting safer consumption than existing practices. Industry has a legal duty to adequately inform consumers about their products and should be mandated to include key information on alcohol containers.
OBJECTIVE: To test whether alcohol labels with a cancer warning and national drinking guidelines are an effective tool for supporting more informed and safer alcohol consumption among drinkers. METHODS: Using a quasi-experimental design, pre-post surveys were conducted with 1647 cohort participants systematically selected in liquor stores in two matched sites in Canada in 2017-2018. Enhanced labels designed according to best practices for effective product labels were applied to alcohol containers in the liquor store in the intervention site for one month, and usual practice continued in the comparison site. Generalized estimating equations tested the differences between sites over time in label salience and processing, and self-reported impact of the labels on drinking behaviours. RESULTS: After the intervention, recall of the cancer warning label increased to a greater extent in the intervention versus comparison site (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 32.2, 95% CI = 5.4, 191.1), but not the national drinking guideline label (AOR = 2.7, 95% CI = 0.2, 31.8). There were significant label effects in the intervention versus comparison site for reading (AOR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.3, 2.5), thinking about (AOR = 2.0, 95% CI = 1.4, 2.9), and talking with others about (AOR = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.3, 3.6) the labels, as well as self-reported impact to cut down on drinking (AOR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.3, 4.7) and to drink less (AOR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.3, 4.3). CONCLUSIONS:Alcohol labels with a cancer warning and national drinking guidelines do a better job conveying risk information and promoting safer consumption than existing practices. Industry has a legal duty to adequately inform consumers about their products and should be mandated to include key information on alcohol containers.
Entities:
Keywords:
Alcohol; Alcohol labels; Cancer warning; National alcohol drinking guidelines; Policy; Population health; Quasi-experiment
Authors: Jose M Martin-Moreno; Meggan E Harris; Joao Breda; Lars Møller; Jose L Alfonso-Sanchez; Lydia Gorgojo Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Barry D Weiss; Mary Z Mays; William Martz; Kelley Merriam Castro; Darren A DeWalt; Michael P Pignone; Joy Mockbee; Frank A Hale Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Simone Pettigrew; Michelle I Jongenelis; David Glance; Tanya Chikritzhs; Iain S Pratt; Terry Slevin; Wenbin Liang; Melanie Wakefield Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2016-02
Authors: M Petticrew; I Shemilt; T Lorenc; T M Marteau; G J Melendez-Torres; A O'Mara-Eves; K Stautz; J Thomas Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Jennifer Cantrell; Donna M Vallone; James F Thrasher; Rebekah H Nagler; Shari P Feirman; Larry R Muenz; David Y He; Kasisomayajula Viswanath Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-14 Impact factor: 3.240