MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404679928 · doi:10.1111/dar.13980

The impact of an integrated alcohol policy: The example of Lithuania

2024· article· en· W4404679928 on OpenAlexaff
Jürgen Rehm, Shannon Lange, Laura Miščikienė, Huan Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug and Alcohol Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAlcoholEnvironmental healthPsychologyMedicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Although integrated alcohol policies, characterised by being consistent, structurally connected and interdependent, are considered to be best practices, very few evaluations of such policies exist. We evaluated the impact of two phases of integrated alcohol policies implemented in Lithuania in 2008/2009 and 2017/2018 on adult (15+ years of age) alcohol per capita consumption. METHODS: Alcohol per capita consumption was the main outcome, based on national data from Statistics Lithuania. Time-series analyses using generalised additive mixed models were used, and unrecorded consumption trends were examined. A sensitivity analysis was conducted with data from the World Health Organization. RESULTS: The two phases of integrated alcohol policies were associated with average reductions in adult alcohol per capita consumption of almost 1 litre (-0.88 L; 95% confidence interval -1.43; -0.34). Sensitivity analyses with comparable international data on Lithuania yielded similar results. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Integrated alcohol policies had a substantial effect on the average level of consumption. However, the effect of major single policies for Lithuania and other Baltic countries has been estimated to be of about the same magnitude. We conclude that in order to be successful, integrated alcohol policies should include at least one major effective population-based policy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.928
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug and Alcohol ReviewSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207