Gage Ryan, Connor Jennie, Jackson Nicki, McKerchar Christina, Signal Louise
Department of Public Health, University of Otago Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand.
Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Drug Alcohol Rev. 2024 Feb;43(2):381-392. doi: 10.1111/dar.13782. Epub 2023 Nov 28.
While effective policies exist to reduce alcohol-related harm, political will to enact them is low in many jurisdictions. We aimed to identify key barriers and strategies for strengthening political priority for alcohol policy reform.
A framework synthesis was conducted, incorporating relevant theory, key informant interviews (n = 37) and a scoping review. Thematic analysis informed the development of a framework for understanding and influencing political priority for alcohol policy.
Twelve barriers and 14 strategies were identified at multiple levels (global, national and local). Major barriers included neoliberal or free trade ideology, the globalised alcohol industry, limited advocate capacity and the normalisation of alcohol harms. Strategies fell into two categories: sector-specific and system change initiatives. Sector-specific strategies primarily focus on influencing policymakers and mobilising civil society. Examples include developing a clear, unified solution, coalition building and effective framing. System change initiatives target structural change to reduce the power imbalance between industry and civil society, such as restricting industry involvement in policymaking and securing sustainable funding for advocacy. A key example is establishing an international treaty, similar to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, to support domestic policymaking.
Our findings provide a framework for understanding and advancing political priority for alcohol policy. The framework highlights that progress can be achieved at various levels and through diverse groups of actors. The importance of upstream drivers of policymaking was a key finding, presenting challenges for time-poor advocates, but offering potential facilitation through effective global leadership.
虽然存在有效的政策来减少与酒精相关的危害,但在许多司法管辖区,制定这些政策的政治意愿很低。我们旨在确定加强酒精政策改革政治优先级的关键障碍和策略。
进行了一项框架综合研究,纳入了相关理论、关键信息人访谈(n = 37)和范围审查。主题分析为理解和影响酒精政策政治优先级的框架发展提供了信息。
在多个层面(全球、国家和地方)确定了12个障碍和14个策略。主要障碍包括新自由主义或自由贸易意识形态、全球化的酒精行业、倡导者能力有限以及酒精危害的常态化。策略分为两类:特定部门和系统变革举措。特定部门策略主要侧重于影响政策制定者和动员民间社会。例如,制定明确、统一的解决方案、建立联盟和有效框架。系统变革举措旨在进行结构变革,以减少行业与民间社会之间的权力不平衡,例如限制行业参与政策制定并确保宣传活动获得可持续资金。一个关键例子是建立一项类似于《烟草控制框架公约》的国际条约,以支持国内政策制定。
我们的研究结果为理解和推进酒精政策的政治优先级提供了一个框架。该框架强调可以在各级通过不同行为体群体取得进展。政策制定上游驱动因素的重要性是一个关键发现,这给时间紧迫的倡导者带来了挑战,但通过有效的全球领导力提供了潜在的便利。