Impacts of licensed premises trading hour policies on alcohol‐related harms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Evaluations of alcohol policy changes demonstrate that restriction of trading hours of both 'on'- and 'off'-licence venues can be an effective means of reducing rates of alcohol-related harm. Despite this, the effects of different trading hour policy options over time, accounting for different contexts and demographic characteristics, and the common co-occurrence of other harm reduction strategies in trading hour policy initiatives, are difficult to estimate. The aim of this study was to use dynamic simulation modelling to compare estimated impacts over time of a range of trading hour policy options on various indicators of acute alcohol-related harm. METHODS: An agent-based model of alcohol consumption in New South Wales, Australia was developed using existing research evidence, analysis of available data and a structured approach to incorporating expert opinion. Five policy scenarios were simulated, including restrictions to trading hours of on-licence venues and extensions to trading hours of bottle shops. The impact of the scenarios on four measures of alcohol-related harm were considered: total acute harms, alcohol-related violence, emergency department (ED) presentations and hospitalizations. RESULTS: Simulation of a 3 a.m. (rather than 5 a.m.) closing time resulted in an estimated 12.3 ± 2.4% reduction in total acute alcohol-related harms, a 7.9 ± 0.8% reduction in violence, an 11.9 ± 2.1% reduction in ED presentations and a 9.5 ± 1.8% reduction in hospitalizations. Further reductions were achieved simulating a 1 a.m. closing time, including a 17.5 ± 1.1% reduction in alcohol-related violence. Simulated extensions to bottle shop trading hours resulted in increases in rates of all four measures of harm, although most of the effects came from increasing operating hours from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m. CONCLUSIONS: An agent-based simulation model suggests that restricting trading hours of licensed venues reduces rates of alcohol-related harm and extending trading hours of bottle shops increases rates of alcohol-related harm. The model can estimate the effects of a range of policy options.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".