Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Jul;45(1):19-28.
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.03.008.

Efficacy and the strength of evidence of U.S. alcohol control policies

Toben F Nelson  1 , Ziming Xuan  2 , Thomas F Babor  3 , Robert D Brewer  4 , Frank J Chaloupka  5 , Paul J Gruenewald  6 , Harold Holder  6 , Michael Klitzner  7 , James F Mosher  8 , Rebecca L Ramirez  9 , Robert Reynolds  9 , Traci L Toomey  10 , Victoria Churchill  2 , Timothy S Naimi  11
Affiliations

Efficacy and the strength of evidence of U.S. alcohol control policies

Toben F Nelson et al. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Jul.

Abstract

Background: Public policy can limit alcohol consumption and its associated harm, but no direct comparison of the relative efficacy of alcohol control policies exists for the U.S.

Purpose: To identify alcohol control policies and develop quantitative ratings of their efficacy and strength of evidence.

Methods: In 2010, a Delphi panel of ten U.S. alcohol policy experts identified and rated the efficacy of alcohol control policies for reducing binge drinking and alcohol-impaired driving among both the general population and youth, and the strength of evidence informing the efficacy of each policy. The policies were nominated on the basis of scientific evidence and potential for public health impact. Analysis was conducted in 2010-2012.

Results: Panelists identified and rated 47 policies. Policies limiting price received the highest ratings, with alcohol taxes receiving the highest ratings for all four outcomes. Highly rated policies for reducing binge drinking and alcohol-impaired driving in the general population also were rated highly among youth, although several policies were rated more highly for youth compared with the general population. Policy efficacy ratings for the general population and youth were positively correlated for reducing both binge drinking (r=0.50) and alcohol-impaired driving (r=0.45). The correlation between efficacy ratings for reducing binge drinking and alcohol-impaired driving was strong for the general population (r=0.88) and for youth (r=0.85). Efficacy ratings were positively correlated with strength-of-evidence ratings.

Conclusions: Comparative policy ratings can help characterize the alcohol policy environment, inform policy discussions, and identify future research needs.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Policy efficacy ratings for reducing binge drinking among youth and general populations
Figure 2
Figure 2
Policy efficacy ratings for reducing binge drinking and alcohol-impaired driving among youth
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Babor T, et al. Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity: Research and Public Policy. 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
    1. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup DF, Gerberding JL. Actual causes of death in the U.S., 2000. JAMA. 2004;291(10):1238–45. - PubMed
    1. Rehm J, Mathers C, Popova S, Thavorncharoensap M, Teerawattananon Y, Patra J. Global burden of disease and injury and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders. Lancet. 2009;373(9682):2223–33. - PubMed
    1. WHO. WHO Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO; 2011.
    1. Bouchery EE, Harwood HJ, Sacks JJ, Simon CJ, Brewer RD. Economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in the U.S. 2006. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(5):516–24. - PubMed

Publication types