Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, Cancer Council, Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia.
Addiction. 2018 Jun;113(6):1030-1042. doi: 10.1111/add.14164. Epub 2018 Feb 21.
To determine (i) whether the strength of Australian alcohol control policy in three domains (youth access, trading hours and drink driving) changed during the 2000s; and (ii) estimate associations between these policies and adolescent drinking after adjusting for television alcohol advertising exposures, alcohol outlet density, alcohol price changes, exposure to negative articles about alcohol in daily newspapers and adult drinking prevalence.
Repeated cross-sectional surveys conducted triennially from 2002 to 2011. Multi-level modelling examined the association between alcohol control policies and drinking prevalence after adjusting for covariates.
Four Australian capital cities between 2002 and 2011.
Students aged 12-17 years participating in a triennial national representative school-based survey (sample size range/survey: 9805-13 119).
Outcome measures were: past month drinking and risky drinking (5+ drinks on a day) in the past 7 days. Policy strength in each of three domains (youth access, trading hours, drink-driving) were the key predictor variables. Covariates included: past 3-month television alcohol and alcohol-control advertising, alcohol outlet density, alcohol price change, negatively framed newspaper alcohol articles, adult drinking prevalence and student demographic characteristics.
During the study period, the strength of youth access policies increased by 10%, trading hours policies by 14% and drink-driving policies by 58%. Past-month and risky drinking prevalence decreased (e.g. past-month: 2002: 47.4% to 2011: 26.3%). Multivariable analyses that included all policy variables and adjusted for year, student and other covariates showed past-month drinking to be associated inversely with stronger trading hours policies [odds ratio (OR) = 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.69, 0.94], but not youth access (OR = 0.92 95% CI = 0.81, 1.04) or drink-driving (OR = 1.00, 95% CI = 0.93, 1.09). Risky drinking was associated inversely with stronger youth access policies (OR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.69, 0.98), but not trading hours (OR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.66, 1.09) or drink-driving (OR = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.90, 1.14) policies.
Population-directed policies designed to reduce alcohol availability and promotion may reduce adolescents' alcohol use.
确定（i）在 21 世纪 00 年代期间，澳大利亚三个领域（青少年获取途径、营业时间和酒后驾车）的酒精控制政策的力度是否发生变化；（ii）在调整电视酒精广告曝光、酒精销售点密度、酒精价格变化、每日报纸上有关酒精的负面文章以及成年人饮酒流行率等因素后，评估这些政策与青少年饮酒之间的关联。
2002 年至 2011 年每三年进行一次的重复横断面调查。多水平模型分析了在调整协变量后，酒精控制政策与饮酒流行率之间的关联。
2002 年至 2011 年间，澳大利亚四个首府城市。
参加全国代表性的三年一次学校基础调查的 12-17 岁学生（样本量范围/调查：9805-13119 人）。
结局指标是过去 7 天内过去一个月的饮酒和危险饮酒（5 次以上）。三个领域（青少年获取途径、营业时间、酒后驾车）的政策强度是关键预测变量。协变量包括：过去 3 个月的电视酒精和酒精控制广告、酒精销售点密度、酒精价格变化、负面框架的报纸酒精文章、成年人饮酒流行率和学生人口统计学特征。
在研究期间，青少年获取途径政策的力度增加了 10%，营业时间政策的力度增加了 14%，酒后驾车政策的力度增加了 58%。过去一个月和危险饮酒的流行率下降（例如，过去一个月：2002 年：47.4%至 2011 年：26.3%）。包括所有政策变量并调整年份、学生和其他协变量的多变量分析表明，过去一个月的饮酒与营业时间政策的强度呈负相关（比值比[OR] = 0.80，95%置信区间[CI] = 0.69，0.94），但与青少年获取途径政策（OR = 0.92，95%CI = 0.81，1.04）或酒后驾车政策（OR = 1.00，95%CI = 0.93，1.09）无关。危险饮酒与青少年获取途径政策的强度呈负相关（OR = 0.82，95%CI = 0.69，0.98），但与营业时间政策（OR = 0.85，95%CI = 0.66，1.09）或酒后驾车政策（OR = 1.02，95%CI = 0.90，1.14）无关。
旨在减少酒精供应和促销的针对人群的政策可能会减少青少年的饮酒量。
