Top

BMC Public Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

Exposure to revised drinking guidelines and ‘COM-B’ determinants of behaviour change: descriptive analysis of a monthly cross-sectional survey in England

Authors: Abigail K. Stevely, Penny Buykx, Jamie Brown, Emma Beard, Susan Michie, Petra S. Meier, John Holmes

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

January 2016 saw the publication of proposed revisions to the UK’s lower risk drinking guidelines but no sustained promotional activity. This paper aims to explore the impact of publishing guidelines without sustained promotional activity on reported guideline exposure and determinants of behaviour (capability, opportunity and motivation) proposed by the COM-B model.

Methods

Data were collected by a monthly repeat cross-sectional survey of adults (18+) resident in England over 15 months between November 2015 and January 2017 from a total of 16,779 drinkers, as part of the Alcohol Toolkit Study. Trends and associated 95% confidence intervals were described in the proportion of reported exposure to guidelines in the past month and measures of the capability, opportunity and motivation to consume alcohol within drinking guidelines.

Results

There was a rise in reported exposure to drinking guidelines in January 2016 (57.6–80.6%) which did not reoccur in January 2017. Following the increase in January 2016, reported exposure reduced slowly but remained significantly higher than in December 2015. In February 2016, there was an increase in measures of capability (31.1% reported tracking units of alcohol consumption and 87.8% considered it easier to drink safely) and opportunity (84.0% perceived their lifestyle as conducive to drinking within guidelines). This change was not maintained in subsequent months. Other measures showed marginal changes between January and February 2016 with no evidence of change in subsequent months.

Conclusions

Following the publication of revised drinking guideline in January 2016, there was a transient increase in exposure to guidelines, and capability and opportunity to drink within the guidelines that diminished over time. The transience and size of the changes indicate that behaviour change is unlikely. Well-designed, theory-based promotional campaigns may be required for drinking guidelines to be an effective public health intervention.

Available only for authorised users

The previous guidelines (1995) recommended that men should not regularly consume more than 3–4 units a day and 2–3 units a day for women. The definition of regularly was every day or nearly every day.

HM Government. The Government’s Alcohol Strategy. 2012. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/alcohol-strategy. Accessed 25 May 2017.

Department of Health. Alcohol Guidelines Review - Report from the Guidelines development group to the UK Chief Medical Officers. HM Government. 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/health-risks-from-alcohol-new-guidelines. Accessed 25 May 2017.

Kalinowski A, Humphreys K. Governmental standard drink definitions and low-risk alcohol consumption guidelines in 37 countries. Addiction. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13341.

Broholm K, Galluzzo L, Gandin C, Ghirini S, Ghiselli A, Jones L, Martire S, Mongan D, Montonen M, Mäkelä P, et al. Good practice principles for low risk drinking guidelines. 2016. http://www.tai.ee/images/WP5_Good_practice_low_risk_guidelines.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec 2017.

Scafato E, Galluzzo L, Ghirini S, Gandin C, Martire S. Low risk drinking guidelines in Europe: overview of RARHA survey results. 2016. http://www.rarha.eu/Resources/Guidelines/Documents/Overview%20WP5_T1%20LowRiskDrinkingGuidelines_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 4 Dec 2017.

HM Government. Health risks from alcohol: new guidelines. 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/health-risks-from-alcohol-new-guidelines. Accessed 25 May 2017.

Walsh GW, Bondy SJ, Rehm J. Review of Canadian low-risk drinking guidelines and their effectiveness. Can J Public Health. 1998;89(4):241–7.PubMed

Babor TF, Caetano R, Casswell S, Edwards G, Giesbrecht N, Graham K, Grube J, Hill L, Holder H, Homel R, et al. Alcohol: no ordinary commodity: research and public policy. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.CrossRef

Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6(1):42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Grønbæk M, Strøger U, Strunge H, Møller L, Graff V, Iversen L. Impact of a 10-year nation-wide alcohol campaign on knowledge of sensible drinking limits in Denmark. Eur J Epidemiol. 2001;17(5):423–7.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Livingston M. Perceptions of low-risk drinking levels among Australians during a period of change in the offical drinking guidelines. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2012; https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-3362.2011.00414.x.

12.

Strunge H. Danish experiences of national campaigns on alcohol 1990–1996. Drugs Educ Prev Policy. 1998;5(1):73–9.CrossRef

13.

Beard E, Brown J, West R, Acton C, Brennan A, Drummond C, Hickman M, Holmes J, Kaner E, Lock K, et al. Protocol for a national monthly survey of alcohol use in England with 6-month follow-up: ‘The Alcohol Toolkit Study’. BMC Public Health. 2015;15:230.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Babor TF, Higgins-Biddle JC, Saunders JB, Monteiro MG. AUDIT: the alcohol use disorders identification test: guidelines for use in primary care. 2nd ed. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2001.

15.

Fidler JA, Shahab L, West O, Jarvis MJ, McEwen A, Stapleton JA, Vangeli E, West R. ‘The smoking toolkit study’: a national study of smoking and smoking cessation in England. BMC Public Health. 2011;11(1):479.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Gmel G, Graham K, Kuendig H, Kuntsche S. Measuring alcohol consumption—should the ‘graduated frequency’ approach become the norm in survey research? Addiction. 2006;101(1):16–30.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903.CrossRefPubMed

18.

McManus S, Bebbington P, Jenkins R, Brugha T, editors. Mental health and wellbeing in England: adult psychiatric morbidity survey 2014. Leeds: NHS Digital; 2016.

19.

Fuller E. Health Survey for England, 2014: Chapter 8: Adult Alcohol Consumption. 2014. http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB19295. Accessed 8 Dec 2017.

20.

Campden BRI. Final report on: audit of compliance of alcohol beverage labels available from the off-trade with the Public Health Responsibility Deal Labelling Pledge. 2014. https://responsibilitydeal.dh.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Campden-BRI_Audit-of-PHRD-labelling-compliance-2014-_FINAL-report_October2014-final.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2017.

21.

Department of Health. Communicating the UK Chief Medical Officers’ alcohol guidelines. HM Government. 2017. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/communicating-the-uk-chief-medical-officers-alcohol-guidelines. Accessed 25 May 2017.

22.

Michie S, Johnston M, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles M. From theory to intervention: mapping theoretically derived behavioural determinants to behaviour change techniques. Appl Psychol. 2008;57(4):660–80.CrossRef

23.

Michie S, West R. Behaviour change theory and evidence: a presentation to government. Health Psychol Rev. 2013;7(1):1–22.CrossRef

24.

Holmes J, Brown J, Meier P, Beard E, Michie S, Buykx P. Short-term effects of announcing revised lower risk national drinking guidelines on related awareness and knowledge: a trend analysis of monthly survey data in England. BMJ Open. 2016;6(12):e013804. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013804.

25.

McKillop A, Crisp J, Walsh K. Practice guidelines need to address the ‘how’ and the ‘what’ of implementation. Prim Health Care Res Dev. 2011;13(1):48–59.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Shiffman RN, Dixon J, Brandt C, Essaihi A, Hsiao A, Michel G, O’Connell R. The GuideLine Implementability Appraisal (GLIA): development of an instrument to identify obstacles to guideline implementation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2005;5:23.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Smith K, Foster J. Alcohol, Health Inequalities and the Harm Paradox: Why some groups face greater problems despite consuming less alcohol. Institute of Alcohol Studies. 2014. http://www.ias.org.uk/uploads/pdf/IAS%20reports/IAS%20report%20Alcohol%20and%20health%20inequalities%20FULL.pdf. Accessed 25 May 2017.

28.

Baum F, Fisher M. Why behavioural health promotion endures despite its failure to reduce health inequities. Sociol Health Illn. 2014;36(2):213–25.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Mäkelä P, Paljärvi T. Do consequences of a given pattern of drinking vary by socioeconomic status? A mortality and hospitalisation follow-up for alcohol-related causes of the Finnish Drinking Habits Surveys. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008;62(8):728–33.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Exposure to revised drinking guidelines and ‘COM-B’ determinants of behaviour change: descriptive analysis of a monthly cross-sectional survey in England
Authors: Abigail K. Stevely
Penny Buykx
Jamie Brown
Emma Beard
Susan Michie
Petra S. Meier
John Holmes
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5129-y

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Exposure to revised drinking guidelines and ‘COM-B’ determinants of behaviour change: descriptive analysis of a monthly cross-sectional survey in England

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

ACC 2024 Congress

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Protocol: a multi-level intervention program to reduce stress in 9-1-1 telecommunicators

Expanded HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) implementation in communities in New South Wales, Australia (EPIC-NSW): design of an open label, single arm implementation trial

More to gain: dietary energy density is related to smoking status in US adults

Mothers’ and father’s perceptions of the risks and benefits of screen time and physical activity during early childhood: a qualitative study

Development of a peer support intervention to encourage dietary behaviour change towards a Mediterranean diet in adults at high cardiovascular risk

When helping helps: exploring health benefits of cancer survivors participating in for-cause physical activity events