Reducing alcohol use through alcohol control policies in the general population and population subgroups: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We estimate the effects of alcohol taxation, minimum unit pricing (MUP), and restricted temporal availability on overall alcohol consumption and review their differential impact across sociodemographic groups. Web of Science, Medline, PsycInfo, Embase, and EconLit were searched on 08/12/2022 and 09/26/2022 for studies on newly introduced or changed alcohol policies published between 2000 and 2022 (Prospero registration: CRD42022339791). We combined data using random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Of 1887 reports, 36 were eligible. Doubling alcohol taxes or introducing MUP (Int$ 0.90/10 g of pure alcohol) reduced consumption by 10% (for taxation: 95% prediction intervals [PI]: -18.5%, -1.2%; for MUP: 95% PI: -28.2%, 5.8%), restricting alcohol sales by one day a week reduced consumption by 3.6% (95% PI: -7.2%, -0.1%). Substantial between-study heterogeneity contributes to high levels of uncertainty and must be considered in interpretation. Pricing policies resulted in greater consumption changes among low-income alcohol users, while results were inconclusive for other socioeconomic indicators, gender, and racial and ethnic groups. Research is needed on the differential impact of alcohol policies, particularly for groups bearing a disproportionate alcohol-attributable health burden. Funding: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number R01AA028009.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it