Department of Health Behavior, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Alcohol Research Group, Public Health Institute, Emeryville, CA, USA.
Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2021 May 4;47(3):393-401. doi: 10.1080/00952990.2020.1870690. Epub 2021 Mar 18.
: Policy support research identifies demographic profiles of those who support policies, but community organizers aim to mobilize groups with an existing structure. Thus, identifying established groups that support alcohol policies may aid organizing efforts.: This paper calculates prevalence and odds of policy support among three potential constituency groups (i.e., religious affiliation, persons harmed by others' drinking, and persons in recovery from alcohol) for three policies: alcohol tax increases, banning alcohol in corner stores, and universal coverage for alcohol treatment.: Using the 2014-15 National Alcohol Survey (n = 3,444; 1,457 male, 1,987 female) and logistic regression, this study explores associations between constituency groups and policy support.: Support was higher for the individual-level strategy of alcohol treatment (80.8%) than raising taxes (27.5%) and banning sales in corner stores (52.2%). Support for taxes was higher among persons who valued religion highly (vs not; aOR = 1.46, < .01), persons harmed by others' drinking (vs not; aOR = 1.71, < .001), and persons in recovery (vs. not; aOR = 1.76, = .02); Catholics had lower odds of support for taxes (vs no denomination; aOR = 0.63, = .01). Persons who valued religion highly (aOR = 1.53, < .001), Protestants (aOR = 1.63, < .01), Catholics (aOR = 1.46, = .03), and persons with other religious denominations (aOR = 2.17, = .02) had higher odds of supporting bans in corner stores. Only those in recovery showed greater support for treatment (aOR = 3.20, < .001).: Overall, support was lower for population-wide approaches, but results revealed constituency groups that supported these policies. These groups may be allies to organizers who seek to reduce population-level alcohol consumption and harms.
政策支持研究确定了支持政策的人群特征,但社区组织者的目标是动员具有现有结构的群体。因此,确定支持酒精政策的既定群体可能有助于组织工作。本文计算了三个潜在选民群体(即宗教信仰、因他人饮酒而受害的人和酒精康复者)对三项政策(即提高酒精税、禁止在街角商店销售酒精和普及酒精治疗)的政策支持率和可能性。使用 2014-15 年全国酒精调查(n=3444;1457 名男性,1987 名女性)和逻辑回归,本研究探讨了选民群体与政策支持之间的关联。个人层面的酒精治疗策略(80.8%)的支持率高于提高税收(27.5%)和禁止在街角商店销售(52.2%)。宗教信仰程度高的人(与不高相比;aOR=1.46, <.01)、因他人饮酒而受害的人(与不高相比;aOR=1.71, <.001)和康复者(与不高相比;aOR=1.76, =.02)对税收的支持率更高;与无教派相比,天主教徒的税收支持率较低(aOR=0.63, =.01)。宗教信仰程度高的人(aOR=1.53, <.001)、新教徒(aOR=1.63, <.01)、天主教徒(aOR=1.46, =.03)和其他宗教教派的人(aOR=2.17, =.02)对禁止在街角商店销售酒精的支持率更高。只有康复者对治疗的支持率更高(aOR=3.20, <.001)。总体而言,对人群广泛的方法的支持率较低,但结果显示了支持这些政策的选民群体。这些群体可能是那些希望减少人群饮酒和伤害的组织者的盟友。