Trangenstein P J, Sadler R, Morrison C N, Jernigan D H
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health, Department of Health Behavior, Chapel Hill, NC 29599.
Boston University School of Public Health, Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston, MA 02118.
Addict Res Theory. 2021;29(2):117-128. doi: 10.1080/16066359.2020.1751128. Epub 2020 May 6.
The literature consistently finds that areas with greater density of alcohol outlets (places that sell alcohol) tend to have higher levels of public health harms. However, conflicting findings arise when researchers drill down to identify the type(s) of alcohol outlets with the strongest associations with harms and the mechanisms that explain these associations. These disagreements could be a result of the outdated methods commonly used to quantify the alcohol environment: counts of the number of outlets in an area. This manuscript reviews the events and ideas that shaped the literature on the physical alcohol environment. It then defines the three main methods used to measure alcohol outlet density, conducts an exploratory factor analysis to explore the constructs underlying each method, and presents a novel conceptual framework that summarizes the three methods, their respective underlying constructs, and the setting(s) in which each may be most appropriate. The framework proposes that counts of alcohol outlets measure availability, proximity to the nearest outlet measures accessibility, and spatial access measures measure access, which comprises both availability and accessibility. We argue that researchers should consider using proximity and spatial access measures when possible and outline how doing so may present opportunities to advance theory and the design and implementation of alcohol outlet zoning regulations. Finally, this manuscript draws on research from other areas of the built environment to suggest opportunities to use novel methods to overcome common hurdles (e.g., separating subtypes of outlets, ecologic designs) and a new challenge on the horizon: home delivery.
文献一致发现,酒精销售点(出售酒精的场所)密度较高的地区往往公共卫生危害水平也较高。然而,当研究人员深入探究以确定与危害关联最强的酒精销售点类型以及解释这些关联的机制时,却出现了相互矛盾的研究结果。这些分歧可能是由于常用于量化酒精环境的过时方法所致:统计某一地区销售点的数量。本文回顾了塑造酒精物理环境相关文献的事件和观点。然后定义了用于测量酒精销售点密度的三种主要方法,进行探索性因素分析以探究每种方法背后的结构,并提出了一个新颖的概念框架,总结了这三种方法、它们各自的潜在结构以及每种方法可能最适用的场景。该框架提出,酒精销售点的计数衡量可得性,到最近销售点的距离衡量可达性,空间可达性测量衡量获取,获取包括可得性和可达性。我们认为研究人员应尽可能考虑使用距离和空间可达性测量方法,并概述这样做如何可能为推进理论以及酒精销售点分区法规的设计与实施带来机遇。最后,本文借鉴建筑环境其他领域的研究,提出利用新方法克服常见障碍(如区分销售点亚型、生态设计)的机遇以及即将面临的新挑战:送货上门。