Factors influencing public health engagement in alcohol licensing in England and Scotland including legal and structural differences: comparative interview analysis.

Background: Greater availability of alcohol is associated with higher consumption and harms. The legal systems, by which premises are licensed to sell alcohol in England and Scotland, differ in several ways. The 'Exploring the impact of alcohol licensing in England and Scotland' study measured public health team activity regarding alcohol licensing from 2012 to 2019 and identified seven differences between England and Scotland in the timing and type of activities undertaken. Objectives: To qualitatively describe the seven previously identified differences between Scotland and England in public health approaches to alcohol licensing, and to examine, from the perspective of public health professionals, what factors may explain these differences. Methods: Ninety-four interviews were conducted with 52 professionals from 14 English and 6 Scottish public health teams selected for diversity who had been actively engaging with alcohol licensing. Interviews focused primarily on the nature of their engagement (n = 66) and their rationale for the approaches taken (n = 28). Interview data were analysed thematically using NVivo. Findings were constructed by discussion across the research team, to describe and explain the differences in practice found. Findings: Diverse legal, practical and other factors appeared to explain the seven differences. (1) Earlier engagement in licensing by Scottish public health teams in 2012-3 may have arisen from differences in the timing of legislative changes giving public health a statutory role and support from Alcohol Focus Scotland. (2) Public Health England provided significant support from 2014 in England, contributing to an increase in activity from that point. (3) Renewals of statements of licensing policy were required more frequently in Scotland and at the same time for all Licensing Boards, probably explaining greater focus on policy in Scotland. (4) Organisational structures in Scotland, with public health stakeholders spread across several organisations, likely explained greater involvement of senior leaders there. (5) Without a public health objective for licensing, English public health teams felt less confident about making objections to licence applications without other stakeholders such as the police, and instead commonly negotiated conditions on licences with applicants. In contrast, Scottish public health teams felt any direct contact with applicants was inappropriate due to conflicts of interest. (6) With the public health objective in Scotland, public health teams there were more active in making independent objections to licence applications. Further in Scotland, licensing committee meetings are held to consider all new applications regardless of whether objections have been submitted; unlike in England where there was a greater incentive to resolve objections, because then a meeting was not required. (7) Finally, Scottish public health teams involved the public more in licensing process, partly because of statutory licensing forums there. Conclusions: The alcohol premises licensing systems in England and Scotland differ in important ways including and beyond the lack of a public health objective for licensing in England. These and other differences, including support of national and local bodies, have shaped opportunities for, and the nature of, public health engagement. Further research could examine the relative success of the approaches taken by public health teams and how temporary increases in availability are handled in the two licensing systems. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Reseacrh programme as award number 15/129/11.

When alcohol becomes more widely available, harms tend to increase. In England and Scotland, this availability is controlled by local councils. They 'licence' shops, bars and other venues to allow them to sell alcohol. Local health teams, including doctors, often advise councils on licensing. In earlier work, we found seven differences in what Scottish and English health teams do on licensing. In this study, we explore these seven differences and why they came about. To do this, we interviewed 94 professionals working in public health across both countries. Scottish health teams got involved in licensing earlier than in England. This was partly because of when certain laws changed. Also, they were helped earlier by national organisations that try to reduce harm from alcohol. Scottish teams were more involved in local policies on licensing. This was probably because these policies changed more often in the Scottish system. Scottish teams involved the public more. This was partly because Scottish councils must set up 'local licensing forums'. Scottish teams also objected more often to licence applications. They generally felt that they could be more actively involved, because of a law in Scotland that says licensing must protect public health. This law does not apply in England. In England, health teams were more likely to talk to businesses that wanted licences. They were less likely to try to block applications. When they agreed changes to applications with businesses instead of objecting, fewer formal licensing meetings were needed. This was not the case in Scotland. Also, Scottish teams did not feel it was okay for them to talk to businesses. In summary, there are important differences in licensing law between Scotland and England. These matter for how health teams in the two countries engage with local councils, businesses and the public on licensing matters.

The effectiveness of alcohol label information for increasing knowledge and awareness: a rapid evidence review.

BACKGROUND: Consumers have difficulty understanding alcoholic units and low risk drinking guidelines (LRDG). Labelling may improve comprehension. The aims of this rapid evidence review were to establish the effectiveness of on-bottle labelling for (i) improving comprehension of health risks; (ii) improving comprehension of unit and/or standard drink information and/or LRDG, and (iii) reducing self-reported intentions to drink/actual drinking. METHODS: Electronic database searches were carried out (January 2008-November 2018 inclusive). Papers were included if they were: published in English; from an Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development country; an experimental/quasi-experimental design. Papers were assessed for quality using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment tool. Ten papers were included. Most studies were moderate quality (n = 7). RESULTS: Five themes emerged: comprehension of health risks; self-reported drinking intentions; comprehension of unit/standard drink information and/or LRDG; outcome expectancies; and label attention. Labelling can improve awareness, particularly of health harms, but is unlikely to change behaviour. Improved comprehension was greatest for labels with unit information and LRDG. CONCLUSIONS: Alcohol labelling can be effective in improving people's comprehension of the health risks involved in drinking alcohol enabling them to make informed consumption decisions, and perhaps thereby provide a route to changing behaviour. Thus, effective alcohol labelling is an intervention that can be added to the broader suite of policy options. That being said, the literature reviewed here suggests that the specific format of the label matters, so careful consideration must be given to the design and placement of labels.

Policies and interventions to reduce harmful gambling: an international Delphi consensus and implementation rating study.

There is increasing public health concern about harmful gambling, but no consensus on effective policies and interventions to reduce risk and prevent harm has been reached. Focusing on policies and interventions (ie, measures), the aim of this study was to determine if expert consensus could be reached on measures perceived to be effective that could be implemented successfully. Our work involved a pre-registered, three-round, independent Delphi panel consensus study and an implementation rating exercise. A starting set of 103 universal and targeted measures, which were sourced from several key resources and inputs from public health stakeholders, were grouped into seven domains: price and taxation; availability; accessibility; marketing, advertising, promotion, and sponsorship; environment and technology; information and education; and treatment and support. Across three rounds, an independent panel of 35 experts individually completed online questionnaires to rank each measure for known or potential effectiveness. A consensus was reached if at least 70% of the panel judged a measure to be either not effective, moderately effective, or highly effective. Then, each measure that reached a consensus for effectiveness was evaluated on four implementation dimensions: practicability, affordability, side-effects, and equity. A summative threshold criterion was used to select a final optimal set of measures for England. The panel reached consensus on 83 (81%) of 103 measures. Two measures were judged as ineffective by the panel. The remaining 81 effective measures were drawn from all domains (14 of 15 measures in the the marketing, advertising, promotion, and sponsorship domain were judged as effective, whereas five of ten measures in the information and education domain were judged as effective). During the evaluation exercise, the 81 measures were assessed for likelihood of implementation success. This assessment considered the practicality, affordability, ability to generate unanticipated side-effects, and ability to decrease differences between advantaged and disadvantaged groups in society of each measure. We identified 40 universal and targeted measures to tackle harmful gambling (three measures from the price and taxation domain; ten from the availability domain; five from the accessibility domain; six from the marketing, advertising, promotion, and sponsorship domain; eight from the environment and technology domain; three from the information and education domain; and five from the treatment and support domain). Implementation of these measures in England could substantially strengthen regulatory controls while providing new resources. The findings of our work offer a blueprint for a public health approach to preventing harms related to gambling.

Effect of alcohol label designs with different pictorial representations of alcohol content and health warnings on knowledge and understanding of low-risk drinking guidelines: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The UK low-risk drinking guidelines (LRDG) recommend not regularly drinking more than 14 units of alcohol per week. We tested the effect of different pictorial representations of alcohol content, some with a health warning, on knowledge of the LRDG and understanding of how many drinks it equates to. DESIGN: Parallel randomized controlled trial. SETTING: On-line, 25 January-1 February 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (n = 7516) were English, aged over 18 years and drink alcohol. INTERVENTIONS: The control group saw existing industry-standard labels; six intervention groups saw designs based on: food labels (serving or serving and container), pictographs (servings or containers), pie charts (servings) or risk gradients. A total of 500 participants (~70 per condition) saw a health warning under the design. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes: (i) knowledge: proportion who answered that the LRDG is 14 units; and (ii) understanding: how many servings/containers of beverages one can drink before reaching 14 units (10 questions, average distance from correct answer). FINDINGS: In the control group, 21.5% knew the LRDG; proportions were higher in intervention groups (all P < 0.001). The three best-performing designs had the LRDG in a separate statement, beneath the pictograph container: 51.1% [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 3.08-4.54], pictograph serving 48.8% (aOR = 4.11, 95% CI = 3.39-4.99) and pie-chart serving, 47.5% (aOR = 3.57, 95% CI = 2.93-4.34). Participants underestimated how many servings they could drink: control mean = -4.64, standard deviation (SD) = 3.43; intervention groups were more accurate (all P < 0.001), best performing was pictograph serving (mean = -0.93, SD = 3.43). Participants overestimated how many containers they could drink: control mean = 0.09, SD = 1.02; intervention groups overestimated even more (all P < 0.007), worst-performing was food label serving (mean = 1.10, SD = 1.27). Participants judged the alcohol content of beers more accurately than wine or spirits. The inclusion of a health warning had no statistically significant effect on any measure. CONCLUSIONS: Labels with enhanced pictorial representations of alcohol content improved knowledge and understanding of the UK's low-risk drinking guidelines compared with industry-standard labels; health warnings did not improve knowledge or understanding of low-risk drinking guidelines. Designs that improved knowledge most had the low-risk drinking guidelines in a separate statement located beneath the graphics.

'The opportunity to have their say'? Identifying mechanisms of community engagement in local alcohol decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Engaging the community in decisions-making is recognised as important for improving public health, and is recommended in global alcohol strategies, and in national policies on controlling alcohol availability. Yet there is little understanding of how to engage communities to influence decision-making to help reduce alcohol-related harms. We sought to identify and understand mechanisms of community engagement in decision-making concerning the local alcohol environment in England. METHODS: We conducted case studies in three local government areas in England in 2018, purposively selected for examples of community engagement in decisions affecting the local alcohol environment. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with residents, workers, local politicians and local government practitioners, and analysed documents linked to engagement and alcohol decision-making. RESULTS: Four rationales for engaging the community in decision-making affecting the alcohol environment were identified: i) as part of statutory decision-making processes; ii) to develop new policies; iii) as representation on committees; and iv) occurring through relationship building. Many of the examples related to alcohol licensing processes, but also local economy and community safety decision-making. The impact of community inputs on decisions was often not clear, but there were a few instances of engagement influencing the process and outcome of decision-making relating to the alcohol environment. CONCLUSIONS: While influencing statutory licensing decision-making is challenging, community experiences of alcohol-related harms can be valuable 'evidence' to support new licensing policies. Informal relationship-building between communities and local government is also beneficial for sharing information about alcohol-related harms and to facilitate future engagement. However, care must be taken to balance the different interests among diverse community actors relating to the local alcohol environment, and extra support is needed for those with least capacity to engage but who face more burden of alcohol-related harms, to avoid compounding existing inequalities.

Identifying opportunities for engaging the 'community' in local alcohol decision-making: A literature review and synthesis.

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.