Literature DB >> 33341875

Support for Alcohol Policies in Marginalized Populations.

Pamela J Trangenstein1, Nina Mulia2, Camillia K Lui2, Katherine J Karriker-Jaffe2, Thomas K Greenfield2, Rhonda Jones-Webb3.   

Abstract

AIM: Kingdon [(2014) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Essex. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited] argues that windows of opportunity to pass policies emerge when problems, solutions and policy support co-occur. This study aims to identify a set of alcohol policies with the potential to reduce alcohol-related disparities given high levels of support from marginalized groups, such as racial/ethnic minorities and lower-income groups.
METHODS: This study used data from five US National Alcohol Surveys, which were based on household probability samples of adults in 1995 (n = 4243), 2000 (n = 5736), 2005 (n = 1445), 2010 (n = 4164) and 2015 (n = 4041). We used multiple logistic regression to determine the odds of policy support by racial/ethnic group and income level, considering price, place and marketing policies as well as individual-level interventions.
RESULTS: Overall a majority of Americans supported banning alcohol sales in corner stores (59.4%), banning alcohol advertisements on television (55.5%), and establishing universal health coverage for alcohol treatment (80.0%). Support was particularly high among Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos and lower-income persons. Multivariate models showed that compared with White people, foreign-born Hispanics/Latinos had the most robust levels of support, including raising alcohol taxes (aOR = 2.40, 95% CI: 2.00, 2.88, P < 0.0001), banning alcohol sales in corner stores (aOR = 2.85, 95% CI: 2.22, 3.65, P < 0.0001) and reducing retail sales hours (aOR = 2.91, 95% CI: 2.38, 3.55, P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: Of the policies examined, banning alcohol sales at corner stores is most likely to be in a "window of opportunity" for reducing alcohol-related disparities. By simultaneously reducing population-level consumption and harms from others' drinking, place-based policies have the potential to reduce harms experienced by marginalized groups.
© The Author(s) 2020. Medical Council on Alcohol and Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 33341875      PMCID: PMC8243274          DOI: 10.1093/alcalc/agaa130

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Alcohol Alcohol        ISSN: 0735-0414            Impact factor:   2.826


  38 in total

1.  Public opinions on alcohol policy issues: a comparison of American and Canadian surveys.

Authors:  N Giesbrecht; T K Greenfield
Journal:  Addiction       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 6.526

Review 2.  How effective is alcoholism treatment in the United States?

Authors:  W R Miller; S T Walters; M E Bennett
Journal:  J Stud Alcohol       Date:  2001-03

3.  Changes in Australian attitudes to alcohol policy: 1995-2010.

Authors:  Sarah Callinan; Robin Room; Michael Livingston
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Rev       Date:  2013-12-23

4.  Experience of harm from others' drinking and support for stricter alcohol policies: Analysis of the Australian National Drug Strategy Household Survey.

Authors:  Oliver Stanesby; Georgia Rankin; Sarah Callinan
Journal:  Int J Drug Policy       Date:  2017-05-30

5.  Socioeconomic determinants of exposure to alcohol outlets.

Authors:  Christopher Morrison; Paul J Gruenewald; William R Ponicki
Journal:  J Stud Alcohol Drugs       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 2.582

6.  Social inequalities and gender differences in the experience of alcohol-related problems.

Authors:  Ulrike Grittner; Sandra Kuntsche; Kathryn Graham; Kim Bloomfield
Journal:  Alcohol Alcohol       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 2.826

7.  Public support for alcohol policies associated with knowledge of cancer risk.

Authors:  Penny Buykx; Conor Gilligan; Bernadette Ward; Rebecca Kippen; Kathy Chapman
Journal:  Int J Drug Policy       Date:  2014-08-21

8.  Racial/ethnic disparities in alcohol-related problems: differences by gender and level of heavy drinking.

Authors:  Jane Witbrodt; Nina Mulia; Sarah E Zemore; William C Kerr
Journal:  Alcohol Clin Exp Res       Date:  2014-04-14       Impact factor: 3.455

9.  Telephone versus in-person interviews for alcohol use: results of the 2000 National Alcohol Survey.

Authors:  Lorraine T Midanik; Thomas K Greenfield
Journal:  Drug Alcohol Depend       Date:  2003-12-11       Impact factor: 4.492

10.  Using public health and community partnerships to reduce density of alcohol outlets.

Authors:  David H Jernigan; Michael Sparks; Evelyn Yang; Randy Schwartz
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 2.830

View more
  1 in total

1.  Interested constituents: identifying groups to mobilize in community organizing efforts to strengthen alcohol control policies.

Authors:  Pamela J Trangenstein; Thomas K Greenfield; Katherine J Karriker-Jaffe
Journal:  Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse       Date:  2021-03-18       Impact factor: 3.829

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.