Mapping alcohol and tobacco tax policy interventions to inform health and economic impact analyses: A United Kingdom based qualitative framework analysis.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol and tobacco have different policy regimes and there is little understanding of how changes to policy on each commodity might combine to affect the same outcomes or to affect people who both drink and smoke. The aim of this study was to deepen understanding of the policy objectives of UK alcohol and tobacco tax options being considered at the time of the interviews with a set of UK policy participants in 2018, and the factors affecting the implementation and outcomes of the policy options discussed. METHODS: Ten tax policy experts were recruited from government arms-length organisations and advocacy groups in England and Scotland (4 alcohol, 4 tobacco, 2 alcohol and tobacco). Alcohol and tobacco experts were interviewed together in pairs and asked to discuss alcohol and tobacco tax policy objectives, options, and the mechanisms of effect. Interviews were semi-structured, supported by a briefing document and topic guide, audio-recorded, transcribed and then analysed deductively using framework analysis. RESULTS: Alcohol and tobacco tax policy share objectives of health improvement and there is a common set of policy options: increasing duty rates, duty escalators, multi-rate tax structures, industry levies and the hypothecation of tax revenue for investment in societal benefits. However, participants agreed that the harms caused by alcohol and tobacco and their industries are viewed differently, and that this influences the impacts that are prioritised in tax policymaking. Working-out how alcohol and tobacco taxes could work synergistically to reduce health inequalities was seen as desirable. Participants also highlighted the importance of avoiding the combined effects of price increases on alcohol and tobacco widening economic inequalities. CONCLUSIONS: Impact analyses should consider the combined effects of alcohol and tobacco tax policies on health and economic inequalities, and how the effects of changes to the tax on each commodity might trade-off.

Options for modifying UK alcohol and tobacco tax: A rapid scoping review of the evidence over the period 1997-2018.

Background: Increased taxation is recognised worldwide as one of the most effective interventions for decreasing tobacco and harmful alcohol use, with many variations of policy options available. This rapid scoping review was part of a NIHR-funded project ('SYNTAX' 16/105/26) and was undertaken during 2018 to inform interviews to be conducted with UK public health stakeholders with expertise in alcohol and tobacco pricing policy. Methods: Objectives: To synthesise evidence and debates on current and potential alcohol and tobacco taxation options for the UK, and report on the underlying objectives, evidence of effects and mediating factors.Eligibility criteria: Peer-reviewed and grey literature; published 1997-2018; English language; UK-focused; include taxation interventions for alcohol, tobacco, or both. Sources of evidence: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Google, stakeholder and colleague recommendations.Charting methods: Excel spreadsheet structured using PICO framework, recording source characteristics and content. Results: Ninety-one sources qualified for inclusion: 49 alcohol, 36 tobacco, 6 both. Analysis identified four policy themes: changes to excise duty within existing tax structures, structural reforms, industry measures, and hypothecation of tax revenue for public benefits. For alcohol, policy options focused on raising the price of cheap, high-strength alcohol. For tobacco, policy options focused on raising the price of all tobacco products, especially the cheapest products, which are hand-rolling tobacco. For alcohol and tobacco, there were options such as levies that take money from the industries to help reduce the societal costs of their products. Due to the perceived social and economic importance of alcohol in contrast to tobacco, policy options also discussed supporting pubs and small breweries. Conclusions: This review has identified a set of tax policy options for tobacco and alcohol, their objectives, evidence of effects and related mediating factors. The differences between alcohol and tobacco tax policy options and debates suggest an opportunity for cross-substance policy learning.

Why we did it: Alcohol and tobacco cause many diseases and deaths. People who drink heavily are more likely to be smokers. People who smoke and drink heavily are more likely to get ill and die sooner. Increasing alcohol and tobacco taxes has been shown to reduce their consumption. Research was needed to understand how and why alcohol and tobacco tax might be changed. This rapid scoping review was undertaken during 2018 as part of a National Institute for Health and Care Research funded project called 'SYNTAX' (16/105/26). Its main purpose was to inform interviews to be conducted with UK public health stakeholders with expertise in alcohol and tobacco pricing policy. Why we did it: We looked at academic papers and policy reports published between 1997 and 2018 that discussed or estimated the effects of changes to tax on alcohol and tobacco. What we found: The results of the review summarise the options for changing alcohol and tobacco taxes that were being considered in the UK, and why. What this means: Some options for changing tax were the same for alcohol and tobacco, but there were also differences between alcohol and tobacco, which reflected differences in how alcohol and tobacco are viewed in society. We used the findings of the review to prepare to speak to alcohol and tobacco tax experts about the options for changing tax on alcohol and tobacco, which we did in 2018.

Changes in public support for alcohol policies in NSW, Australia, 2013-2019.

OBJECTIVES: Alcohol contributes to significant health, social and economic burdens worldwide, but evidence-based policy options can reduce the harm associated with alcohol use. The aim of this paper is to understand factors influencing public support for various alcohol policies in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, and to determine any change over time. METHODS: An online survey of adults in NSW, in 2013 (n = 2482), 2016 (n = 1585) and 2019 (n = 1601), assessed support for alcohol policies. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the change in support over time, adjusting for demographics, alcohol consumption, smoking status and knowledge of alcohol as a risk factor for cancer. RESULTS: Most participants (68-72%) supported policies preventing underage internet users from exposure to alcohol advertising, and banning alcohol sponsorship of underage music and sporting events. Fiscal policies and restrictions on the number of alcohol outlets were the least supported policies (<40% support). Compared with 2013, participants in 2016 and 2019 were less likely to support policies increasing price, applying a volumetric tax and reducing the number of alcohol outlets. In 2019, more than 55% of respondents were aware that alcohol was a cancer risk factor, and knowledge of that relationship was associated with an increased likelihood of support for alcohol policies. CONCLUSIONS: Support was greatest for alcohol harm-reduction policies that had less impact on an individual's drinking. Overall, support for alcohol policies in NSW is not increasing. Initiatives to raise awareness about the health consequences of alcohol use, together with effective alcohol policies, are needed to counter industry influence on decision makers and negative public discourse.

Using mixed methods to establish tobacco treatment acceptability from the perspective of clients and clinicians of antenatal substance use services.

BACKGROUND: Up to 95% of pregnant women with alcohol and other drug (AOD) problems also smoke tobacco. Challenging psychosocial circumstances and a lack of targeted tobacco interventions contribute to low rates of prenatal abstinence and more effective treatment strategies are required. This study explores smoking in pregnant clients of AOD treatment services from a consumer and healthcare provider perspective to examine characteristics of behaviour change and the acceptability of evidence-based tobacco treatment strategies. Outcomes will support the design and implementation of a comprehensive tobacco intervention. METHODS: A mixed methods triangulated design was used. Thirteen women who smoked and attended antenatal AOD services in New South Wales, Australia, were interviewed and 28 clinicians from the same services were surveyed. Domains including experiences of tobacco smoking in pregnancy, motivators and barriers to cessation and evidence-based strategies to assist cessation during pregnancy were explored. Interviews were analysed using Iterative Categorization, with interpretation guided by Qualitative Description. Online surveys were analysed descriptively. A convergent-parallel mixed methods analysis was performed. RESULTS: Women and clinicians agreed that improving baby's health outcomes was the primary motivation to stop smoking. Negative experiences with nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), financial constraints and maternal contraindications restricted its uptake and effectiveness during pregnancy. Both groups agreed that other AOD use, stopping multiple substances concurrently, difficulty coping with stress and the influence of partners who smoke had the biggest impacts on cessation efforts. Clinicians favoured harm-reduction rather than abstinence-based tobacco interventions and women appeared satisfied with reduction efforts. Both views may influence the attainment of prenatal abstinence-based goals. Although previous evidence suggested the contrary, clinicians were willing to encourage simultaneous cessation of tobacco and other substances. Non-judgmental treatment approaches that provide extra support, education and motivation were important for women. Women and clinicians supported use of NRT despite concerns. Financial incentives, counselling, partner support and offering tobacco treatment with antenatal AOD care were considered acceptable treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: NRT, incentives, counselling and partner support could be utilized in a tobacco intervention for pregnant women with substance use concerns. Non-judgmental education, motivation, and provision of NRT including instruction for correct use are important considerations.

The impact of disinvestment on alcohol and drug treatment delivery and outcomes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In the context of substantial financial disinvestment from alcohol and drug treatment services in England, our aim was to review the existing evidence of how such disinvestments have impacted service delivery, uptake, outcomes and broader health and social implications. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence (PROSPERO CRD42020187295), searching bibliographic databases and grey literature. Given that an initial scoping search highlighted a scarcity of evidence specific to substance use treatment, evidence of disinvestment from publicly funded sexual health and smoking cessation services was also included. Data on disinvestment, political contexts and impacts were extracted, analysed, and synthesized thematically. RESULTS: We found 20 eligible papers varying in design and quality including 10 related to alcohol and drugs services, and 10 to broader public health services. The literature provides evidence of sustained disinvestment from alcohol and drug treatment in several countries and a concurrent decline in the quantity and quality of treatment provision, but there was a lack of methodologically rigorous studies investigating the impact of disinvestment. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified a paucity of scientific evidence quantifying the impacts of disinvestment on alcohol and drug treatment service delivery and outcomes. As the global economy faces new challenges, a stronger evidence base would enable informed policy decisions that consider the likely public health impacts of continued disinvestment.

Awareness of alcohol as a risk factor for cancer is associated with public support for alcohol policies.

BACKGROUND: Globally, alcohol is causally related to 2.5 million deaths per year and 12.5% of these are due to cancer. Previous research has indicated that public awareness of alcohol as a risk factor for cancer is low and this may contribute to a lack of public support for alcohol policies. The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between awareness of the alcohol-cancer link and support for a range of alcohol policies in an English sample and policy context. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 2100 adult residents in England was conducted in which respondents answered questions regarding awareness of the link between alcohol and cancer and support for 21 policy proposals. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to reduce the 21 policy proposals down to a set of underlying factors. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to estimate the relationship between awareness of the alcohol-cancer link and each of these policy factors. RESULTS: Thirteen per cent of the sample were aware of the alcohol-cancer link unprompted, a further 34% were aware when prompted and 53% were not aware of the link. PCA reduced the policy items to four policy factors, which were named price and availability, marketing and information, harm reduction and drink driving. Awareness of the alcohol-cancer link unprompted was associated with increased support for each of four underlying policy factors: price and availability (Beta: 0.06, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.10), marketing and information (Beta: 0.05, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.09), harm reduction (Beta: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.05, 0.14), and drink driving (Beta: 0.16, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Support for alcohol policies is greater among individuals who are aware of the link between alcohol and cancer. At the same time, a large proportion of people are unaware of the alcohol-cancer link and so increasing awareness may be an effective approach to increasing support for alcohol policies.

Self-Reported Knowledge, Correct Knowledge and use of UK Drinking Guidelines Among a Representative Sample of the English Population.

AIMS: Promotion of lower risk drinking guidelines is a commonly used public health intervention with various purposes, including communicating alcohol consumption risks, informing drinkers' decision-making and, potentially, changing behaviour. UK drinking guidelines were revised in 2016. To inform potential promotion of the new guidelines, we aimed to examine public knowledge and use of the previous drinking guidelines, including by population subgroup. METHODS: A demographically representative, cross-sectional online survey of 2100 adults living in England in July 2015 (i.e. two decades after adoption of previous guidelines and prior to introduction of new guidelines). Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions examined associations between demographic variables, alcohol consumption (AUDIT-C), smoking, and knowledge of health conditions and self-reported knowledge and use of drinking guidelines. Multinomial logistic regression examined the same set of variables in relation to accurate knowledge of drinking guidelines (underestimation, accurate-estimation, overestimation). RESULTS: In total, 37.8% of drinkers self-reported knowing their own-gender drinking guideline, of whom 66.2% gave an accurate estimate. Compared to accurate estimation, underestimation was associated with male gender, lower education and AUDIT-C score, while overestimation was associated with smoking. Few (20.8%) reported using guidelines to monitor drinking at least sometimes. Drinking guideline use was associated with higher education, overestimating guidelines and lower AUDIT-C. Correctly endorsing a greater number of health conditions as alcohol-related was associated with self-reported knowledge of guidelines, but was not consistently associated with accurate estimation or use to monitor drinking. CONCLUSIONS: Two decades after their introduction, previous UK drinking guidelines were not well known or used by current drinkers. Those who reported using them tended to overestimate recommended daily limits. SHORT SUMMARY: We examined public knowledge and use of UK drinking guidelines just before new guidelines were released (2016). Despite previous guidelines being in place for two decades, only one in four drinkers accurately estimated these, with even fewer using guidelines to monitor drinking. Approximately 8% of drinkers overestimated maximum daily limits.

Population Level Effects of a Mass Media Alcohol and Breast Cancer Campaign: A Cross-Sectional Pre-Intervention and Post-Intervention Evaluation.

AIMS: To examine the relationship between a TV-led breast cancer mass-media campaign in the North East of England (conducted in two waves: Jul/2015 and Nov/2015), awareness of the link between alcohol and cancer, intention to reduce alcohol consumption and support for alcohol related policies. METHODS: Three cross-sectional surveys were conducted; one over the 2 weeks pre-campaign (n = 572); one immediately following campaign wave 1 (n = 576); and another immediately following campaign wave 2 (n = 552). Survey questions assessed; campaign exposure; awareness of the links between alcohol and related cancers; intention to change alcohol consumption; and support for alcohol related policies. RESULTS: The proportion of respondents indicating awareness of alcohol as a cancer risk factor was larger post-campaign compared to pre-campaign. The largest increase was seen for breast cancer with 45% aware of the links post-campaign wave 2 compared to 33% pre-campaign. The proportion of respondents indicating 'strong support' of the seven alcohol related policies significantly increased between surveys. The proportion of respondents both aware of alcohol as a cancer risk factor and supportive of the seven alcohol related policies significantly increased between surveys. There was no significant change in self-reported intention to reduce alcohol consumption amongst increasing/higher risk drinkers. CONCLUSION: These findings indicate that a mass-media campaign raising awareness of the links between alcohol and breast cancer is associated with increased awareness and alcohol related policy support at a population level. However, there was no association found with a change in short-term drinking intentions. SHORT SUMMARY: A mass-media campaign raising awareness of the links between alcohol and breast cancer is associated with increased awareness and alcohol policy support at a population level but does not appear to be associated with a change in short term drinking intentions.

New national alcohol guidelines in the UK: public awareness, understanding and behavioural intentions.

Background: Alcohol consumption places a significant burden on the NHS and is an important risk factor for cancer, associated with 12 800 UK cases/year. New alcohol guidelines were published in 2016, taking into account the increasing evidence of the health harms of alcohol. Methods: A survey of the UK drinker population (n = 972) was conducted 1 week before and 1 month after the release of the guidelines to capture drinking habits, guideline awareness and intended behaviour change. Results: Overall, 71% were aware of the new alcohol guidelines, however, just 8% knew what the recommended limits were. Higher socioeconomic groups were more likely to know these limits (ABC1 = 9% versus C2DE = 4%, P = 0.009). Participants who recognized the message that alcohol causes cancer were more likely to correctly identify the new guidelines (message recognition = 12% versus no recognition = 6%, P = 0.004); and were more likely to self-report an intention to reduce their alcohol consumption (message recognition = 10% versus no recognition = 6%, P = 0.01). Conclusion: The majority of the population knew the guidelines had been updated, however, communication of the new limits needs to be improved. Raising awareness of the links between alcohol and cancer may improve understanding of alcohol guidelines and could prompt behaviour change for those motivated to reduce their alcohol consumption.

Identification of cancer risk and associated behaviour: implications for social marketing campaigns for cancer prevention.

BACKGROUND: Community misconception of what causes cancer is an important consideration when devising communication strategies around cancer prevention, while those initiating social marketing campaigns must decide whether to target the general population or to tailor messages for different audiences. This paper investigates the relationships between demographic characteristics, identification of selected cancer risk factors, and associated protective behaviours, to inform audience segmentation for cancer prevention social marketing. METHODS: Data for this cross-sectional study (n = 3301) are derived from Cancer Council New South Wales' 2013 Cancer Prevention Survey. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to investigate the relationship between respondent demographic characteristics and identification of each of seven cancer risk factors; demographic characteristics and practice of the seven 'protective' behaviours associated with the seven cancer risk factors; and identification of cancer risk factors and practising the associated protective behaviours, controlling for demographic characteristics. RESULTS: More than 90% of respondents across demographic groups identified sun exposure and smoking cigarettes as moderate or large cancer risk factors. Around 80% identified passive smoking as a moderate/large risk factor, and 40-60% identified being overweight or obese, drinking alcohol, not eating enough vegetables and not eating enough fruit. Women and older respondents were more likely to identify most cancer risk factors as moderate/large, and to practise associated protective behaviours. Education was correlated with identification of smoking as a moderate/large cancer risk factor, and with four of the seven protective behaviours. Location (metropolitan/regional) and country of birth (Australia/other) were weak predictors of identification and of protective behaviours. Identification of a cancer risk factor as moderate/large was a significant predictor for five out of seven associated cancer-protective behaviours, controlling for demographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a role for both audience segmentation and whole-of-population approaches in cancer-prevention social marketing campaigns. Targeted campaigns can address beliefs of younger people and men about cancer risk factors. Traditional population campaigns can enhance awareness of being overweight, alcohol consumption, and poor vegetable and fruit intake as cancer risk factors.

Public awareness of the link between alcohol and cancer in England in 2015: a population-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Public knowledge of the association between alcohol and cancer is reported to be low. We aimed to provide up-to-date evidence for England regarding awareness of the link between alcohol and different cancers and to determine whether awareness differs by demographic characteristics, alcohol use, and geographic region. METHODS: A representative sample of 2100 adults completed an online survey in July 2015. Respondents were asked to identify which health outcomes, including specific cancers, may be caused by alcohol consumption. Logistic regressions explored whether demographic, alcohol use, and geographic characteristics predicted correctly identifying alcohol-related cancer risk. RESULTS: Unprompted, 12.9% of respondents identified cancer as a potential health outcome of alcohol consumption. This rose to 47% when prompted (compared to 95% for liver disease and 73% for heart disease). Knowledge of the link between alcohol and specific cancers varied between 18% (breast) and 80% (liver). Respondents identified the following cancers as alcohol-related where no such evidence exists: bladder (54%), brain (32%), ovarian (17%). Significant predictors of awareness of the link between alcohol and cancer were being female, more highly educated, and living in North-East England. CONCLUSION: There is generally low awareness of the relationship between alcohol consumption and cancer, particularly breast cancer. Greater awareness of the relationship between alcohol and breast cancer in North-East England, where a mass media campaign highlighted this relationship, suggests that population awareness can be influenced by social marketing.

Characteristics of individuals presenting to treatment for primary alcohol problems versus other drug problems in the Australian patient pathways study.

BACKGROUND: People seeking treatment for substance use disorders often have additional health and social issues. Although individuals presenting with alcohol as the primary drug of concern (PDOC) account for nearly half of all treatment episodes to the Australian alcohol and other drug (AOD) service system, previous treatment cohort studies have focused only on the profile of Australian heroin or methamphetamine users. While studies overseas indicate that clients seeking treatment primarily for their drinking are less likely to experience social and economic marginalisation than those seeking treatment primarily for illicit or pharmaceutical drug use, very little research has directly compared individuals presenting with alcohol as the PDOC to those primarily presenting with other drugs as their PDOC. METHODS: Seven hundred and ninety-six participants were recruited at entry to specialist AOD treatment in Victoria and Western Australia, and completed measures of demographic and social factors, substance use, quality of life, service use, and criminal justice involvement. We compared those with alcohol as their PDOC to those with other drugs as their PDOC using Pearson chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Rates of social disadvantage, poor quality of life, high severity of substance dependence, and past-year AOD, mental health, acute health, and social service use were high in all groups. However, participants with alcohol as the PDOC were older; more likely to have an educational qualification; less likely to report criminal justice involvement, housing/homelessness service use, tobacco smoking, or problems with multiple substances; and reported better environmental quality of life; but were more likely to have used ambulance services, than those with other drugs as their PDOC. CONCLUSIONS: While those seeking treatment primarily for alcohol problems appear less likely to suffer some forms of social and economic disadvantage or to use multiple substances than those with a primary drug problem, they experience similarly high levels of substance dependence severity and mental health and AOD service use. These findings reinforce the need for AOD services to integrate or coordinate care with programs that address the many complexities clients frequently present with, while also acknowledging differences between those seeking treatment for alcohol versus other drug problems.

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

BACKGROUND: Several options are advocated by policy experts to mitigate alcohol-related harms, although the most effective strategies often have the least public support. While knowledge of tobacco-related health risks predicts support for relevant public health measures, it is not known whether knowledge of alcohol health risks is similarly associated with the acceptability of policies intended to reduce alcohol consumption and related harms. This study aims to gauge public support for a range of alcohol policies and to determine whether or not support is associated with knowledge of a long-term health risk of alcohol consumption, specifically cancer. METHODS: 2482 adults in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, participated in an online survey. Logistic regression analysis was used to examine the association between demographic data, alcohol consumption, smoking status, knowledge of alcohol as a risk factor for cancer and support for alcohol-related policies. RESULTS: Most participants were supportive of health warnings, restricting access to internet alcohol advertising to young people, and requiring information on national drinking guidelines on alcohol containers. Almost half of participants supported a ban on sport sponsorship, while less than 41% supported price increases, volumetric taxation, or reducing the number of retail outlets. Only 47% of participants identified drinking too much alcohol as a risk factor for cancer. Knowledge of alcohol as a risk factor for cancer was a significant predictor of support for all policies, while level of alcohol consumption had a significant inverse relationship with policy support. CONCLUSION: The finding that support for alcohol management policies is associated with awareness that drinking too much alcohol may contribute to cancer could assist in the planning of future public health interventions. Improving awareness of the long term health risks of alcohol consumption may be one avenue to increasing public support for effective alcohol harm-reduction policies.

How do small rural primary health care services sustain themselves in a constantly changing health system environment?

BACKGROUND: The ability to sustain comprehensive primary health care (PHC) services in the face of change is crucial to the health of rural communities. This paper illustrates how one service has proactively managed change to remain sustainable. METHODS: A 6-year longitudinal evaluation of the Elmore Primary Health Service (EPHS) located in rural Victoria, Australia, is currently underway, examining the performance, quality and sustainability of the service. Threats to, and enablers of, sustainability have been identified from evaluation data (audit of service indicators, community surveys, key stakeholder interviews and focus groups) and our own observations. These are mapped against an overarching framework of service sustainability requirements: workforce organisation and supply; funding; governance, management and leadership; service linkages; and infrastructure. RESULTS: Four years into the evaluation, the evidence indicates EPHS has responded effectively to external and internal changes to ensure viability. The specific steps taken by the service to address risks and capitalise on opportunities are identified. CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation highlights lessons for health service providers, policymakers, consumers and researchers about the importance of ongoing monitoring of sentinel service indicators; being attentive to changes that have an impact on sustainability; maintaining community involvement; and succession planning.