scholarly journals Intended and unintended consequences of the implementation of minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland: a natural experiment

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 1-210
Author(s):  
Vivian So ◽  
Andrew D Millard ◽  
S Vittal Katikireddi ◽  
Ross Forsyth ◽  
Sarah Allstaff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Emergency Departments ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Alcohol Content ◽  
Health Clinics ◽  
Unit Pricing ◽  
Sexual Health Clinics

Background Scotland was the first country to implement minimum unit pricing for alcohol nationally. Minimum unit pricing aims to reduce alcohol-related harms and to narrow health inequalities. Minimum unit pricing sets a minimum retail price based on alcohol content, targeting products preferentially consumed by high-risk drinkers. This study comprised three components. Objectives This study comprised three components assessing alcohol consumption and alcohol-related attendances in emergency departments, investigating potential unintended effects of minimum unit pricing on alcohol source and drug use, and exploring changes in public attitudes, experiences and norms towards minimum unit pricing and alcohol use. Design We conducted a natural experiment study using repeated cross-sectional surveys comparing Scotland (intervention) and North England (control) areas. This involved comparing changes in Scotland following the introduction of minimum unit pricing with changes seen in the north of England over the same period. Difference-in-difference analyses compared intervention and control areas. Focus groups with young people and heavy drinkers, and interviews with professional stakeholders before and after minimum unit pricing implementation in Scotland allowed exploration of attitudes, experiences and behaviours, stakeholder perceptions and potential mechanisms of effect. Setting Four emergency departments in Scotland and North England (component 1), six sexual health clinics in Scotland and North England (component 2), and focus groups and interviews in Scotland (component 3). Participants Research nurses interviewed 23,455 adults in emergency departments, and 15,218 participants self-completed questionnaires in sexual health clinics. We interviewed 30 stakeholders and 105 individuals participated in focus groups. Intervention Minimum unit pricing sets a minimum retail price based on alcohol content, targeting products preferentially consumed by high-risk drinkers. Results The odds ratio for an alcohol-related emergency department attendance following minimum unit pricing was 1.14 (95% confidence interval 0.90 to 1.44; p = 0.272). In absolute terms, we estimated that minimum unit pricing was associated with 258 more alcohol-related emergency department visits (95% confidence interval –191 to 707) across Scotland than would have been the case had minimum unit pricing not been implemented. The odds ratio for illicit drug consumption following minimum unit pricing was 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.88 to 1.24; p = 0.612). Concerns about harms, including crime and the use of other sources of alcohol, were generally not realised. Stakeholders and the public generally did not perceive price increases or changed consumption. A lack of understanding of the policy may have caused concerns about harms to dependent drinkers among participants from more deprived areas. Limitations The short interval between policy announcement and implementation left limited time for pre-intervention data collection. Conclusions Within the emergency departments, there was no evidence of a beneficial impact of minimum unit pricing. Implementation appeared to have been successful and there was no evidence of substitution from alcohol consumption to other drugs. Drinkers and stakeholders largely reported not noticing any change in price or consumption. The lack of effect observed in these settings in the short term, and the problem-free implementation, suggests that the price per unit set (£0.50) was acceptable, but may be too low. Our evaluation, which itself contains multiple components, is part of a wider programme co-ordinated by Public Health Scotland and the results should be understood in this wider context. Future work Repeated evaluation of similar policies in different contexts with varying prices would enable a fuller picture of the relationship between price and impacts. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16039407. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 9, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Report from the CDC. Telephone Focus Groups: An Emerging Method in Public Health Research

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (10) ◽  
pp. 945-951 ◽  
Author(s):  
Crystale Purvis Cooper ◽  
Cynthia M. Jorgensen ◽  
Tracie L. Merritt
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Public Health Research

scholarly journals A school-based, peer-led programme to increase physical activity among 13- to 14-year-old adolescents: the GoActive cluster RCT

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 1-134
Author(s):  
Kirsten L Corder ◽  
Helen E Brown ◽  
Caroline HD Croxson ◽  
Stephanie T Jong ◽  
Stephen J Sharp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Physical Activity ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Research Council ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Vigorous Physical Activity ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
School Based

Background Adolescent physical activity levels are low and are associated with rising disease risk and social disadvantage. The Get Others Active (GoActive) intervention was co-designed with adolescents and teachers to increase physical activity in adolescents. Objective To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the school-based GoActive programme in increasing adolescents’ moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Design A cluster randomised controlled trial with an embedded mixed-methods process evaluation. Setting Non-fee-paying schools in Cambridgeshire and Essex, UK (n = 16). Schools were computer randomised and stratified by socioeconomic position and county. Participants A total of 2862 Year 9 students (aged 13–14 years; 84% of eligible students). Intervention The iteratively developed feasibility-tested refined 12-week intervention trained older adolescents (mentors) and in-class peer leaders to encourage classes to undertake two new weekly activities. Mentors met with classes weekly. Students and classes gained points and rewards for activity in and out of school. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was average daily minutes of accelerometer-assessed moderate-to-vigorous physical activity at 10 months post intervention. Secondary outcomes included accelerometer-assessed activity during school, after school and at weekends; self-reported physical activity and psychosocial outcomes; cost-effectiveness; well-being and a mixed-methods process evaluation. Measurement staff were blinded to allocation. Results Of 2862 recruited participants, 2167 (76%) attended 10-month follow-up measurements and we analysed the primary outcome for 1874 (65.5%) participants. At 10 months, there was a mean decrease in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity of 8.3 (standard deviation 19.3) minutes in control participants and 10.4 (standard deviation 22.7) minutes in intervention participants (baseline-adjusted difference –1.91 minutes, 95% confidence interval –5.53 to 1.70 minutes; p = 0.316). The programme cost £13 per student compared with control. Therefore, it was not cost-effective. Non-significant indications of differential impacts suggested detrimental effects among boys (boys –3.44, 95% confidence interval –7.42 to 0.54; girls –0.20, 95% confidence interval –3.56 to 3.16), but favoured adolescents from lower socioeconomic backgrounds (medium/low 4.25, 95% confidence interval –0.66 to 9.16; high –2.72, 95% confidence interval –6.33 to 0.89). Mediation analysis did not support the use of any included intervention components to increase physical activity. Some may have potential for improving well-being. Students, teachers and mentors mostly reported enjoying the GoActive intervention (56%, 87% and 50%, respectively), but struggled to conceptualise their roles. Facilitators of implementation included school support, embedding a routine, and mentor and tutor support. Challenges to implementation included having limited school space for activities, time, and uncertainty of teacher and mentor roles. Limitations Retention on the primary outcome at 10-month follow-up was low (65.5%), but we achieved our intended sample size, with retention comparable to similar trials. Conclusions A rigorously developed school-based intervention (i.e. GoActive) was not effective in countering the age-related decline in adolescent physical activity. Overall, this mixed-methods evaluation provides transferable insights for future intervention development, implementation and evaluation. Future work Interdisciplinary research is required to understand educational setting-specific implementation challenges. School leaders and authorities should be realistic about expectations of the effect of school-based physical activity promotion strategies implemented at scale. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN31583496. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 9, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This work was additionally supported by the Medical Research Council (London, UK) (Unit Programme number MC_UU_12015/7) and undertaken under the auspices of the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (Cambridge, UK), a UK Clinical Research Collaboration Public Health Research Centre of Excellence. Funding from the British Heart Foundation (London, UK), Cancer Research UK (London, UK), Economic and Social Research Council (Swindon, UK), Medical Research Council, the National Institute for Health Research (Southampton, UK) and the Wellcome Trust (London, UK), under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, is gratefully acknowledged (087636/Z/08/Z; ES/G007462/1; MR/K023187/1). GoActive facilitator costs were borne by Essex and Cambridgeshire County Councils.

scholarly journals Perils and possibilities: achieving best evidence from focus groups in public health research

2009 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 131-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Willis ◽  
Julie Green ◽  
Jeanne Daly ◽  
Lara Williamson ◽  
Mridula Bandyopadhyay
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Public Health Research

scholarly journals Modifying the secondary school environment to reduce bullying and aggression: the INCLUSIVE cluster RCT

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (18) ◽  
pp. 1-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Bonell ◽  
Elizabeth Allen ◽  
Emily Warren ◽  
Jennifer McGowan ◽  
Leonardo Bevilacqua ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Health Research ◽  
School Environment ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Social And Emotional ◽  
Learning Together

Background Bullying, aggression and violence among children and young people are some of the most consequential public mental health problems. Objectives The INCLUSIVE (initiating change locally in bullying and aggression through the school environment) trial evaluated the Learning Together intervention, which involved students in efforts to modify their school environment using restorative approaches and to develop social and emotional skills. We hypothesised that in schools receiving Learning Together there would be lower rates of self-reported bullying and perpetration of aggression and improved student biopsychosocial health at follow-up than in control schools. Design INCLUSIVE was a cluster randomised trial with integral economic and process evaluations. Setting Forty secondary schools in south-east England took part. Schools were randomly assigned to implement the Learning Together intervention over 3 years or to continue standard practice (controls). Participants A total of 6667 (93.6%) students participated at baseline and 5960 (83.3%) students participated at final follow-up. No schools withdrew from the study. Intervention Schools were provided with (1) a social and emotional curriculum, (2) all-staff training in restorative approaches, (3) an external facilitator to help convene an action group to revise rules and policies and to oversee intervention delivery and (4) information on local needs to inform decisions. Main outcome measures Self-reported experience of bullying victimisation (Gatehouse Bullying Scale) and perpetration of aggression (Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime school misbehaviour subscale) measured at 36 months. Intention-to-treat analysis using longitudinal mixed-effects models. Results Primary outcomes – Gatehouse Bullying Scale scores were significantly lower among intervention schools than among control schools at 36 months (adjusted mean difference –0.03, 95% confidence interval –0.06 to 0.00). There was no evidence of a difference in Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime scores. Secondary outcomes – students in intervention schools had higher quality of life (adjusted mean difference 1.44, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 2.17) and psychological well-being scores (adjusted mean difference 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.66), lower psychological total difficulties (Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire) score (adjusted mean difference –0.54, 95% confidence interval –0.83 to –0.25), and lower odds of having smoked (odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.80), drunk alcohol (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.92), been offered or tried illicit drugs (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 0.73) and been in contact with police in the previous 12 months (odds ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.97). The total numbers of reported serious adverse events were similar in each arm. There were no changes for staff outcomes. Process evaluation – fidelity was variable, with a reduction in year 3. Over half of the staff were aware that the school was taking steps to reduce bullying and aggression. Economic evaluation – mean (standard deviation) total education sector-related costs were £116 (£47) per pupil in the control arm compared with £163 (£69) in the intervention arm over the first two facilitated years, and £63 (£33) and £74 (£37) per pupil, respectively, in the final, unfacilitated, year. Overall, the intervention was associated with higher costs, but the mean gain in students’ health-related quality of life was slightly higher in the intervention arm. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year was £13,284 (95% confidence interval –£32,175 to £58,743) and £1875 (95% confidence interval –£12,945 to £16,695) at 2 and 3 years, respectively. Limitations Our trial was carried out in urban and periurban settings in the counties around London. The large number of secondary outcomes investigated necessitated multiple statistical testing. Fidelity of implementation of Learning Together was variable. Conclusions Learning Together is effective across a very broad range of key public health targets for adolescents. Future work Further studies are required to assess refined versions of this intervention in other settings. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10751359. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 7, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Additional funding was provided by the Educational Endowment Foundation.

scholarly journals Utilizing asynchronous email interviews for health research: overview of benefits and drawbacks

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Amri ◽  
Christina Angelakis ◽  
Dilani Logan
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Data Quality ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Geographic Location ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Data Accuracy ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Snowball Sampling ◽  
Face To Face

Abstract Objective Through collating observations from various studies and complementing these findings with one author’s study, a detailed overview of the benefits and drawbacks of asynchronous email interviewing is provided. Through this overview, it is evident there is great potential for asynchronous email interviews in the broad field of health, particularly for studies drawing on expertise from participants in academia or professional settings, those across varied geographical settings (i.e. potential for global public health research), and/or in circumstances when face-to-face interactions are not possible (e.g. COVID-19). Results Benefits of asynchronous email interviewing and additional considerations for researchers are discussed around: (i) access transcending geographic location and during restricted face-to-face communications; (ii) feasibility and cost; (iii) sampling and inclusion of diverse participants; (iv) facilitating snowball sampling and increased transparency; (v) data collection with working professionals; (vi) anonymity; (vii) verification of participants; (viii) data quality and enhanced data accuracy; and (ix) overcoming language barriers. Similarly, potential drawbacks of asynchronous email interviews are also discussed with suggested remedies, which centre around: (i) time; (ii) participant verification and confidentiality; (iii) technology and sampling concerns; (iv) data quality and availability; and (v) need for enhanced clarity and precision.

scholarly journals Reporting the methods used in public health research and practice

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 89-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna F. Stroup ◽  
C. Kay Smith ◽  
Benedict I. Truman
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Public Health Research ◽  
Research And Practice
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document