National Drug Research Institute, Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Cancer Council Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 10;16(12):e0261280. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261280. eCollection 2021.
Industry self-regulation is the dominant approach to managing alcohol advertising in Australia and many other countries. There is a need to explore the barriers to government adoption of more effective regulatory approaches. This study examined relevance and quality features of evidence cited by industry and non-industry actors in their submissions to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations.
Submissions to two public consultations with a primary focus on alcohol advertising policy were analysed. Submissions (n = 71) were classified into their actor type (industry or non-industry) and according to their expressed support for, or opposition to, increased regulation of alcohol advertising. Details of cited evidence were extracted and coded against a framework adapted from previous research (primary codes: subject matter relevance, type of publication, time since publication, and independence from industry). Evidence was also classified as featuring indicators of higher quality if it was either published in a peer-reviewed journal or academic source, published within 10 years of the consultation, and/or had no apparent industry connection.
Almost two-thirds of submissions were from industry actors (n = 45 submissions from alcohol, advertising, or sporting industries). With few exceptions, industry actor submissions opposed increased regulation of alcohol advertising and non-industry actor submissions supported increased regulation. Industry actors cited substantially less evidence than non-industry actors, both per submission and in total. Only 27% of evidence cited by industry actors was highly relevant and featured at least two indicators of higher quality compared to 58% of evidence cited by non-industry actors.
Evaluation of the value of the evidentiary contribution of industry actors to consultations on alcohol advertising policy appears to be limited. Modifications to consultation processes, such as exclusion of industry actors, quality requirements for submitted evidence, minimum standards for referencing evidence, and requirements to declare potential conflicts, may improve the public health outcomes of policy consultations.
行业自律是管理澳大利亚和许多其他国家酒精广告的主要方法。有必要探讨政府采用更有效监管方法的障碍。本研究考察了行业和非行业参与者在提交给澳大利亚酒精广告政策咨询的意见中引用的证据的相关性和质量特征。
分析了两次以酒精广告政策为重点的公众咨询的提交材料。将提交材料（n=71）按其所属的参与者类型（行业或非行业）以及他们对增加酒精广告监管的支持或反对进行分类。提取引用证据的详细信息，并根据从先前研究中改编的框架进行编码（主要编码：主题相关性、出版物类型、出版时间以及与行业的独立性）。如果证据发表在同行评议的期刊或学术来源中，或者在咨询的 10 年内出版，或者没有明显的行业联系，则将证据归类为具有更高质量的指标。
几乎三分之二的提交材料来自行业参与者（来自酒精、广告或体育行业的 n=45 份提交材料）。除了少数例外，行业参与者的提交材料反对增加对酒精广告的监管，而非行业参与者的提交材料则支持增加监管。与非行业参与者相比，行业参与者每提交一份材料和总共提交的材料中引用的证据都要少得多。行业参与者引用的证据中只有 27%具有高度相关性，并且至少有两个高质量指标，而非行业参与者引用的证据中有 58%具有高度相关性，并且至少有两个高质量指标。
对行业参与者对酒精广告政策咨询的证据贡献价值的评估似乎受到限制。对咨询过程进行修改，例如排除行业参与者、对提交的证据提出质量要求、对引用证据设定最低标准、以及要求宣布潜在冲突，可能会改善政策咨询的公共卫生结果。
