Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

LIVE: Thursday 2nd May 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

Quality sleep is essential for health. But what happens to our brains when sleep patterns are disturbed? Join our experts to explore the interplay between sleep disruption and neurological diseases, and the questions that you need to be asking your patients to help you prevent the harmful effects of sleep deprivation.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Reducing the Strength: a mixed methods evaluation of alcohol retailers’ willingness to voluntarily reduce the availability of low cost, high strength beers and ciders in two UK local authorities

Authors: Colin Sumpter, Elizabeth McGill, Esther Dickie, Enes Champo, Ester Romeri, Matt Egan

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Reducing the Strength is an increasingly popular intervention in which local authorities ask retailers to stop selling ‘super-strength’ beers and ciders. The intervention cannot affect alcohol availability, nor consumption, unless retailers participate. In this paper, we ask whether and why retailers choose or refuse to self-impose restrictions on alcohol sales in this way.

Methods

Mixed method assessment of retailers’ participation in Reducing the Strength in two London (UK) local authorities. Compliance rates and the cheapest available unit of alcohol at each store were assessed. Qualitative interviews with retailer managers and staff (n = 39) explored attitudes towards the intervention and perceptions of its impacts.

Results

Shops selling super-strength across both areas fell from 78 to 25 (18 % of all off-licences). The median price of the cheapest unit of alcohol available across all retailers increased from £0.29 to £0.33 and in shops that participated in Reducing the Strength it rose from £0.33 to £0.43. The project received a mixed response from retailers. Retailers said they participated to deter disruptive customers, reduce neighbourhood disruptions and to maintain a good relationship with the local authority. Reducing the Strength participants and non-participants expressed concern about its perceived financial impact due to customers shopping elsewhere for super-strength. Some felt that customers’ ability to circumvent the intervention would limit its effectiveness and that a larger scale compulsory approach would be more effective.

Conclusions

Reducing the Strength can achieve high rates of voluntary compliance, reduce availability of super-strength and raise the price of the cheapest available unit of alcohol in participating shops. Questions remain over the extent to which voluntary interventions of this type can achieve wider social or health goals if non-participating shops attract customers from those who participate.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Local Government Association (LGA). Reducing the Strength: Guidance for Councils Considering Setting up a Scheme. London: Local Government Association; 2014.
6.
The Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC). Statistics on Alcohol: England, 2015. Leeds: The Health and Social Care Information Centre, Lifestyle Statistics; 2015.
7.
Department of Health. UK Chief Medical Officers’ Alcohol Guidelines Review: Summary of the New Guidelines. London: Department of Health; 2016.
8.
Babor T, Caetano R, Casswell S, Edwards G, Giesbrecht N, Graham K. Alcohol: no ordinary commodity. In: Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity: Research and Public Policy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford Univerity Press; 2010. p. 11–21.CrossRef
9.
Grönbaek M. The positive and negative health effects of alcohol‐and the public health implications. J Intern Med. 2009;265:407–20.CrossRefPubMed
10.
National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Australian Guidelines to Reduce Health Risks from Drinking Alcohol. Canberra: NHMRC; 2009.
11.
Goodall T. White Cider and Street Drinkers: Recommendations to Reduce Harm. London: Alcohol Concern UK; 2011.
12.
Lachenmeier DW, Gill JS, Chick J, Rehm J. The total margin of exposure of ethanol and acetaldehyde for heavy drinkers consuming cider or vodka. Food Chem Toxicol. 2015;83:210–4.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Black H, Michalova L, Gill J, et al. White cider consumption and feavy drinkers: a low-cost option but an unknown price. Alcohol Alcohol. 2014;49:675–80.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Stockwell T, Masters L, Philips M, Daly A, Gahegan M, Midford R, Philip A. Consumption of different alcoholic beverages as predictors of local rates of night‐time assault and acute alcohol‐related morbidity. Aust NZ J Public Health. 1998;22:237–42.CrossRef
15.
Wagenaar AC, Salois MJ, Komro KA. Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: a meta‐analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies. Addiction. 2009;104:179–90.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
National Drug Research Institute (NDRI). Restrictions on the Sale and Supply of Alcohol: Evidence and Outcomes. Perth: National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University of Technology; 2007.
18.
Black H, Gill J, Chick J. The price of a drink: levels of consumption and price paid per unit of alcohol by Edinburgh's ill drinkers with a comparison to wider alcohol sales in Scotland. Addiction. 2011;106:729–36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
Holmes J, Meng Y, Meier PS, et al. Effects of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on different income and socioeconomic groups: a modelling study. Lancet. 2014;383:1655–64.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
Loring B. Alcohol and Inequities: Guidance for Addressing Inequities in Alcohol-Related Harm. Copenhagen: World Health Organisation, Regional Office of Europe; 2014.
21.
National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Alcohol-Use Disorders: Preventing Harmful Drinking: NICE Public Health Guidance 24. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2010.
22.
23.
Gilmore AB, Savell E, Collin J. Public health, corporations and the new responsibility deal: promoting partnerships with vectors of disease? J Public Health. 2011;33:2–4.CrossRef
24.
Martineau F, Graff H, Mitchell C, Lock K. Responsibility without legal authority? Tackling alcohol-related health harms through licensing and planning policy in local government. J Public Health. 2013;36:435–42.CrossRef
25.
Knai C, Petticrew M, Durand MA, Eastmure E, Mays N. Are the Public Health Responsibility Deal alcohol pledges likely to improve public health? An evidence synthesis. Addiction. 2015;110:1232–46.CrossRefPubMed
26.
d'Abbs P, Togni S. Liquor licensing and community action in regional and remote Australia: a review of recent initiatives. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2000;24:45–53.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Kinnane S, Farringdon F, Henderson-Yates L, Parker H. A twenty four month evaluation of the impacts of the restriction of take-away alcohol in fitzroy crossing. Mt Lawley, Western Australia: Drug and Alcohol Office; 2010.
28.
Meier P, Holmes J, Angus C, Ally A, Meng Y, Brennan A. Estimated effects of different alcohol taxation and price policies on health inequalities: a mathematical modelling study. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1001963.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
McGill E, Egan M, Petticrew M, Mountford L, Milton S, Whitehead M, Lock K. Trading quality for relevance: non-health decision-makers’ use of evidence on the social determinants of health. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e007053.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
30.
Petticrew M, Whitehead M, Macintyre SJ, Graham H, Egan M. Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 1: the reality according to policymakers. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:811–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
Whitehead M, Petticrew M, Graham H, Macintyre SJ, Bambra C, Egan M. Evidence for public health policy on inequalities: 2: assembling the evidence jigsaw. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:817–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
Innvær S, Vist G, Trommald M, Oxman A. Health policy-makers' perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2002;7:239–44.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Milton S, Petticrew M, Green J. Why do local authorities undertake controlled evaluations of health impact? A qualitative case study of interventions in housing. Public Health. 2014;128:1112–17.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Craig P, Cooper C, Gunnell D, et al. Using Natural Experiments to Evaluate Population Health Interventions. Glasgow: Medical Research Council; 2011.
35.
Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Miche S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance. Glasgow: Medical Research Council; 2008.
36.
Miller P, Coomber K, Sønderlund A, McKenzie S. The long‐term effect of lockouts on alcohol‐related emergency department attendances within Ballarat, Australia. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2012;31(3):70–6.
37.
Wiggers J, Jauncey M, Considine R, Daly J, Kingsland M, Purss K, et al. Strategies and outcomes in translating alcohol harm reduction research into practice: the alcohol linking program. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2004;23:355–64.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Hauritz M, Homel R, McIlwain G, Burrows T. Reducing violence in licensed venues through community safety action projects: the Queensland experience. Contemp Drug Probl. 1998;25:511.CrossRef
39.
Wallin E, Andreasson S. Effects of a community action program on problems related to alcohol consumption at licensed premises. In: Stockwell T, Gruenewald P, Toumboubou J, Loxley W, editors. Preventing Harmful Substance Use: The Evidence Base for Policy and Practice. New York: Wiley; 2005. p. 207–23.CrossRef
40.
Brennan A, Meng Y, Holmes J, Hill-McManus D, Meier PS. Potential benefits of minimum unit pricing for alcohol versus a ban on below cost selling in England 2014: modelling study. BMJ. 2014;349:g5452.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
41.
HM Government. The Government’s Alcohol Strategy. London: The Stationary Office; 2012.
42.
43.
44.
Martineau F, Tyner E, Lorenc T, Petticrew M, Lock K. Population-level interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm: an overview of systematic reviews. Prev Med. 2013;57:278–96.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Moodie R, Stuckler D, Monteiro C, Sheron N, Neal B, Thamarangsi T, et al. Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra-processed food and drink industries. Lancet. 2013;381:670–9.CrossRefPubMed
46.
KPMG. Review of the Social Responsibility Standards for the Production and Sale of Alcoholic Drinks: Volume 1. London: Home Office; 2008.
47.
Coomber K, Martino F, Barbour IR, Mayshak R, Miller PG. Do consumers ‘Get the facts’? A survey of alcohol warning label recognition in Australia. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:816.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
48.
49.
Knai C, Petticrew M, Durand MA. The Public Health Responsibility deal: has a public–private partnership brought about action on alcohol reduction? Addiction. 2015;110:1217–25.CrossRefPubMed
50.
51.
Forsyth AJ, Ellaway A, Davidson N. How might the alcohol minimum unit pricing (MUP) impact upon local off-sales shops and the communities which they serve? Alcohol Alcohol. 2014;49:96–102.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Reducing the Strength: a mixed methods evaluation of alcohol retailers’ willingness to voluntarily reduce the availability of low cost, high strength beers and ciders in two UK local authorities
Authors
Colin Sumpter
Elizabeth McGill
Esther Dickie
Enes Champo
Ester Romeri
Matt Egan
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-016-3117-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Public Health 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

The impact of alcohol care teams on emergency secondary care use following a diagnosis of alcoholic liver disease - a national cohort study

Research article

Living at the edge of an interface area in Zimbabwe: cattle owners, commodity chain and health workers’ awareness, perceptions and practices on zoonoses

Research article

Urban–rural and geographic differences in overweight and obesity in four sub-Saharan African adult populations: a multi-country cross-sectional study

Research article

Disordered eating behavior, health and motives to exercise in young men: cross-sectional population-based MOPO study

Research article

Spatial physical activity patterns among primary school children living in neighbourhoods of varying socioeconomic status: a cross-sectional study using accelerometry and Global Positioning System

Research article

Socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer mortality in Belgian men and women (2001-2011): does it matter who you live with?