How effective are health messages/warnings in improving knowledge and awareness of alcohol-related harm? The Slovenian case on using a mobile app.

BACKGROUND: Consumers generally lack access to information on alcoholic beverages, in spite of it being readily available for food and non-alcoholic beverages. Given the rights of consumers, and as with other products harmful to the population, there have been increasing calls for health warnings to be placed on alcoholic beverages, similar to those implemented on tobacco products. The aim of our research was to assess whether knowledge and awareness of the risks and harms associated with alcohol can be improved with a mobile app. METHODS: Intervention was conducted using VKJ mobile app, which enables users to scan the barcode of an alcoholic beverage and receive feedback on its labelled alcohol content and estimated energy value. At each search, eleven different health messages/warnings about the risks and harms of alcohol are also displayed randomly, rotating on the screen. A survey was conducted before and after the intervention, to assess the knowledge and awareness of the risks and harms associated with drinking alcohol. RESULTS: Significant differences were found for eight of the twelve tested statements. The improvement was seen to a greater extent in the group of high-risk drinkers. The results also showed that the vast majority of participants (78%) who were exposed to the health messages supported mandatory labelling of alcoholic beverages with information on ingredient listing and energy value, and 72% would like to have health warnings on alcohol products. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a mobile app can be an option to improve knowledge and raise awareness of the risks and harms related to alcohol.

Health promotion and disease prevention registries in the EU: a cross country comparison.

BACKGROUND: Health promotion and disease prevention programme registries (HPPRs), also called 'best practice portals', serve as entry points and practical repositories that provide decision-makers with easy access to (evidence-based) practices. However, there is limited knowledge of differences or overlaps of howe current national HPPRs in Europe function, the context and circumstances in which these HPPRs were developed, and the mechanisms utilised by each HPPR for the assessment, classification and quality improvement of the included practices. This study prepared an overview of different approaches in several national HPPRs and the EU Best Practice Portal (EU BPP) as well as identified commonalities and differences among the core characteristics of the HPPRs. METHODS: We conducted a descriptive comparison - that focused on six European countries with existing or recently developed/implemented national HPPR and the EU BPP -to create a comparative overview. We used coding mechanisms to identify commonalities and differences; we performed data management, collection and building consensus during EuroHealthNet Thematic Working Group meetings. RESULTS: All HPPRs offer a broad range of health promotion and disease-prevention practices and serve to support practitioners, policymakers and researchers in selecting practices. Almost all HPPRs have an assessment process in place or planned, requiring the application of assessment criteria that differ among the HPPRs. While all HPPRs collect and share recommendable practices, others have implemented further measures to improve the quality of the submitted practices. Different dissemination tools and strategies are employed to promote the use of the HPPRs, including social media, newsletters and publications as well as capacity building workshops for practice owners or technical options to connect citizens/patients with local practices. CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration between HPPRs (at national and EU level) is appreciated, especially regarding the use consistent terminology to avoid misinterpretation, facilitate cross-country comparison and enable discussions on the adaption of assessment criteria by national HPPRs. Greater efforts are needed to promote the actual implementation and transfer of practices at the national level to address public health challenges with proven and effective practices.

Changes in The Use of Alcohol and Tobacco in Slovenia During the First Wave of The SARS-COV-2 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: In the first months of 2020, the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread all over the world and numerous measures were adopted that had a strong impact on both personal and public life. This contribution explores changes in alcohol and tobacco use during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Slovenia. METHODS: Self-reported changes in alcohol and tobacco use during the first few months of the Covid-19 pandemic were recorded in 495 Slovenian adults, as part of the European Alcohol Use and COVID-19 survey. RESULTS: About half of the Slovenian sample indicated that the frequency of drinking occasions did not change in the months after the pandemic's outbreak, while the remainder stated either a decrease (26.0%) or an increase (24.2%). 23.1% reported a decrease and 17.3% an increase in the quantity of alcohol consumed per occasion. Respondents who reported that their overall alcohol consumption decreased were more likely to be male than female and more likely to be younger than middle-aged. Those who reported experiencing at least a substantial level of distress due to financial loss were at a four-times increased risk of reporting an increase in their alcohol consumption compared to individuals who reported no or only some financial distress. Of the 120 people reporting the use of tobacco, almost half indicated an increase in tobacco consumption within the previous month, and about 20% reported a decrease in use. The differences in the results between Slovenia and other European countries are small and the overall pattern suggests that the situation in Slovenia was comparable to other European countries. CONCLUSION: As this pandemic continues to evolve, further monitoring is needed to identify the long-term effects of alcohol and tobacco use on public health in relation to the management of COVID-19.

Joint action European partnership for action against cancer.

Cancer is a major European public health issue and represents the second most important cause of death and morbidity in Europe. Moreover, as a result of constant advances in medicine, medical technology and other sciences, and due to improvements in economic circumstances, cancer survival rates are increasing in Europe and prevalent cases (i.e. number of subjects who have experienced cancer) represent a growing proportion of the population. In order to tackle cancer efficiently throughout the European Member states, the European Commission launched the Joint Action (JA) 'European Partnership for Action Against Cancer' (EPAAC) facilitated by the Community Health Programme, in September 2009. EPAAC is designed to fill a gap in cooperation, collaboration and shared experiences for countries with similar needs and diverse experience in the area of their national cancer control policies. Activities and studies are tackling the main challenges of cancer control in Europe as a whole and in the Member states, including the provision of services and health system responses, human resources and research. In contrast with previous European actions in the field of cancer, EPAAC joins different partners and stakeholders at various levels ranging from Member states (including Iceland and Norway) and Regions to patient representatives.