Suchergebnisse

Cumulative impact policies (CIPs) are widely used in UK local government to help regulate alcohol markets in localities characterised by high density of outlets and high rates of alcohol related harms. CIPs have been advocated as a means of protecting health by controlling or limiting alcohol availability. We use a comparative qualitative case study approach (n=5 English local government authorities, 48 participants) to assess how CIPs vary across different localities, what they are intended to achieve, and the implications for local-level alcohol availability. We found that the case study CIPs varied greatly in terms of aims, health focus and scale of implementation. However, they shared some common functions around influencing the types and managerial practices of alcohol outlets in specific neighbourhoods without reducing outlet density. The assumption that this will lead to alcohol harm-reduction needs to be quantitatively tested.

Cumulative impact policies (CIPs) are widely used in UK local government to help regulate alcohol markets in localities characterised by high density of outlets and high rates of alcohol related harms. CIPs have been advocated as a means of protecting health by controlling or limiting alcohol availability. We use a comparative qualitative case study approach (n=5 English local government authorities, 48 participants) to assess how CIPs vary across different localities, what they are intended to achieve, and the implications for local-level alcohol availability. We found that the case study CIPs varied greatly in terms of aims, health focus and scale of implementation. However, they shared some common functions around influencing the types and managerial practices of alcohol outlets in specific neighbourhoods without reducing outlet density. The assumption that this will lead to alcohol harm-reduction needs to be quantitatively tested.

Cumulative impact policies (CIPs) are widely used in UK local government to help regulate alcohol markets in localities characterised by high density of outlets and high rates of alcohol related harms. CIPs have been advocated as a means of protecting health by controlling or limiting alcohol availability. We use a comparative qualitative case study approach (n=5 English local government authorities, 48 participants) to assess how CIPs vary across different localities, what they are intended to achieve, and the implications for local-level alcohol availability. We found that the case study CIPs varied greatly in terms of aims, health focus and scale of implementation. However, they shared some common functions around influencing the types and managerial practices of alcohol outlets in specific neighbourhoods without reducing outlet density. The assumption that this will lead to alcohol harm-reduction needs to be quantitatively tested.

Background and Aims: Given the costs of alcohol to society, it is important to evaluate whether local alcohol licensing decisions can mitigate the effects of alcohol misuse. Robust natural experiment evaluations of the impact of individual licensing decisions could potentially inform and improve local decision-making. We aimed to assess whether alcohol licensing decisions can be evaluated at small spatial scale in three English local areas (1,000 – 15,000 people) by using a causal inference framework. Design: This study described three natural experiments Setting: General population Measurements: Timeseries data were obtained on emergency department admissions, ambulance call-outs, and alcohol-related crime at the Lower or Middle Super Output geographical aggregation level. Intervention and comparator: The case study interventions were (i) the closure of a nightclub following reviews; (ii) closure of a restaurant/nightclub following reviews, and (iii) implementation of new local licensing guidance (LLG). Trends in outcomes were compared to synthetic counterfactuals created using Bayesian structural timeseries. Findings: Closure of the nightclub lead to temporary, 4-month, reductions in anti-social behaviour (-18%; 95% Credible Interval -37%, -4%), with no change on other outcomes. Closure of the restaurant/nightclub did not lead to measurable changes in outcomes. The new licensing guidance lead to small reductions in drunk and disorderly behaviour (9 of a predicted 21 events averted), and the unplanned end of the LLG coincided with an increase in domestic violence of 2 incidents per month. Conclusions: The impact of local alcohol policy, even at the level of individual premises, can be evaluated using this causal framework. Local government actions such as closure or restriction of venues and licensing may have a positive impact on health and crime in the immediate surrounding area.

The conditions in which we are born, grow, live, work and age are key drivers of health and inequalities in life chances. To maximise health and wellbeing across the whole population, we need well-coordinated action across government sectors, in areas including economic, education, welfare, labour market and housing policy. Current research struggles to offer effective decision support on the cross-sector strategic alignment of policies, and to generate evidence that gives budget holders the confidence to change the way major investment decisions are made. This open letter introduces a new research initiative in this space. The SIPHER ( Systems Science in Public Health and Health Economics Research) Consortium brings together a multi-disciplinary group of scientists from across six universities, three government partners at local, regional and national level, and ten practice partner organisations. The Consortium's vision is a shift from health policy to healthy public policy, where the wellbeing impacts of policies are a core consideration across government sectors. Researchers and policy makers will jointly tackle fundamental questions about: a) the complex causal relationships between upstream policies and wellbeing, economic and equality outcomes; b) the multi-sectoral appraisal of costs and benefits of alternative investment options; c) public values and preferences for different outcomes, and how necessary trade-offs can be negotiated; and d) creating the conditions for intelligence-led adaptive policy design that maximises progress against economic, social and health goals. Whilst our methods will be adaptable across policy topics and jurisdictions, we will initially focus on four policy areas: Inclusive Economic Growth, Adverse Childhood Experiences, Mental Wellbeing and Housing.

The conditions in which we are born, grow, live, work and age are key drivers of health and inequalities in life chances. To maximise health and wellbeing across the whole population, we need well-coordinated action across government sectors, in areas including economic, education, welfare, labour market and housing policy. Current research struggles to offer effective decision support on the cross-sector strategic alignment of policies, and to generate evidence that gives budget holders the confidence to change the way major investment decisions are made. This open letter introduces a new research initiative in this space. The SIPHER (Systems Science in Public Health and Health Economics Research) Consortium brings together a multi-disciplinary group of scientists from across six universities, three government partners at local, regional and national level, and ten practice partner organisations. The Consortium's vision is a shift from health policy to healthy public policy, where the wellbeing impacts of policies are a core consideration across government sectors. Researchers and policy makers will jointly tackle fundamental questions about: a) the complex causal relationships between upstream policies and wellbeing, economic and equality outcomes; b) the multi-sectoral appraisal of costs and benefits of alternative investment options; c) public values and preferences for different outcomes, and how necessary trade-offs can be negotiated; and d) creating the conditions for intelligence-led adaptive policy design that maximises progress against economic, social and health goals. Whilst our methods will be adaptable across policy topics and jurisdictions, we will initially focus on four policy areas: Inclusive Economic Growth, Adverse Childhood Experiences, Mental Wellbeing and Housing.