MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413768259 · doi:10.1016/s2468-2667(25)00165-3

Targeting alcohol use in high-risk population groups: a US microsimulation study of beverage-specific pricing policies

2025· article· en· W4413768259 on OpenAlexaff
Carolin Kilian, Charlotte Buckley, Julia M. Lemp, William C. Kerr, Nina Mulia, Robin C. Purshouse, Jürgen Rehm, Charlotte Probst

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Public Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMicrosimulationAlcoholPopulationMedicineEnvironmental healthEconomicsDemographyBusinessEconometricsEngineeringBiologyTransport engineeringSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Raising retail prices on alcoholic beverages preferred by high-risk groups (males, those of low socioeconomic status, and those with heavy alcohol use) might selectively reduce their alcohol consumption. However, the differential impact of beverage-specific price increases on US population groups has yet to be studied. This study aimed to simulate the effect of beverage-specific price increases on alcohol use within subgroups of the adult US population defined by sex, educational attainment, and alcohol use category. METHODS: An individual-level microsimulation of the US population (aged 18-79 years) was used to simulate alcohol consumption from 2000 to 2019 based on individual characteristics (ie, sex, age, race, ethnicity, and educational attainment as a proxy for socioeconomic status categorised as high school degree or less, some college, and college degree or more) and previous alcohol use. The microsimulation model was generated via integration of diverse data sources including decennial US Census data, annual data from the American Community Survey, annual data from the National Vital Statistics System, annual data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, and biennial, longitudinal data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics. Policy parameters were informed by the existing literature. Four national policy scenarios were compared with a reference scenario without price change in 2019: a uniform price increase of 10% (scenario 1), a uniform price increase of 30% (scenario 2), a beverage-specific price increase of 30% for beer and spirits and 10% for wine (scenario 3), and a beverage-specific price increase of 50% for beer and spirits and 10% for wine (scenario 4). Individual-level effects on alcohol consumption were simulated using beverage-specific own-price elasticities. Sensitivity analysis assessed assumption-based correlation coefficient between alcohol consumption and the individual-level percent reduction in alcohol consumed; and the application of the beverage-non-specific own-price participation elasticity. FINDINGS: Scenario 4 had the strongest effect on alcohol use overall and most effectively reduced consumption in high-risk groups: males and females with high alcohol use (more than 60 g of pure alcohol per day for males and 40 g of pure alcohol per day for females) and low educational attainment (high school degree or less) reduced their alcohol use by -17·30% (-17·62 g per day, credible interval [CI] -21·77 to -13·20) and -17·49% (-12·25 g per day, CI -14·72 to -9·58), respectively. In comparison, smaller relative changes were observed among groups at less risk of harm. INTERPRETATION: Disproportionate increases in retail prices for the cheapest beverages, beer and spirits, might lead to a greater decline in consumption among high-risk groups. Pricing policies could thus be used as a powerful public health tool to mitigate the unequal alcohol-attributable burden of disease. FUNDING: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Public HealthSame topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207