Manthey Jakob, Jacobsen Britta, Klinger Sinja, Schulte Bernd, Rehm Jürgen
Center for Interdisciplinary Addiction Research (ZIS), Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.
Department of Psychiatry, Medical Faculty, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Addiction. 2024 May;119(5):799-811. doi: 10.1111/add.16411. Epub 2024 Jan 4.
Even though a ban of alcohol marketing has been declared a 'best buy' of alcohol control policy, comprehensive systematic reviews on its effectiveness to reduce consumption are lacking. The aim of this paper was to systematically review the evidence for effects of total and partial bans of alcohol marketing on alcohol consumption.
This descriptive systematic review sought to include all empirical studies that explored how changes in the regulation of alcohol marketing impact on alcohol consumption. The search was conducted between October and December 2022 considering various scientific databases (Web of Science, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Embase) as well as Google and Google Scholar. The titles and abstracts of a total of 2572 records were screened. Of the 26 studies included in the full text screening, 11 studies were finally included in this review. Changes in consumption in relation to marketing bans were determined based on significance testing in primary studies. Four risk of bias domains (confounding, selection bias, information bias and reporting bias) were assessed.
Seven studies examined changes in marketing restrictions in one location (New Zealand, Thailand, Canadian provinces, Spain, Norway). In the remaining studies, between 17 and 45 locations were studied (mostly high-income countries from Europe and North America). Of the 11 studies identified, six studies reported null findings. Studies reporting lower alcohol consumption following marketing restrictions were of moderate, serious and critical risk of bias. Two studies with low and moderate risk of bias found increasing alcohol consumption post marketing bans. Overall, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that alcohol marketing bans reduce alcohol consumption.
The available empirical evidence does not support the claim of alcohol marketing bans constituting a best buy for reducing alcohol consumption.
尽管酒精营销禁令已被宣布为酒精控制政策的“最佳选择”，但缺乏关于其减少酒精消费有效性的全面系统评价。本文旨在系统评价全面和部分酒精营销禁令对酒精消费影响的证据。
本描述性系统评价旨在纳入所有探索酒精营销监管变化如何影响酒精消费的实证研究。检索于2022年10月至12月进行，考虑了各种科学数据库（科学网、心理学文摘数据库、医学期刊数据库、荷兰医学文摘数据库）以及谷歌和谷歌学术。共筛选了2572条记录的标题和摘要。在全文筛选纳入的26项研究中，最终有11项研究纳入本评价。根据原始研究中的显著性检验确定与营销禁令相关的消费变化。评估了四个偏倚风险领域（混杂、选择偏倚、信息偏倚和报告偏倚）。
七项研究考察了一个地区（新西兰、泰国、加拿大各省、西班牙、挪威）营销限制的变化。在其余研究中，研究了17至45个地区（大多是欧洲和北美的高收入国家）。在确定的11项研究中，六项研究报告无显著结果。报告营销限制后酒精消费降低的研究存在中度、严重和关键的偏倚风险。两项偏倚风险低和中度的研究发现营销禁令后酒精消费增加。总体而言，没有足够证据得出酒精营销禁令能减少酒精消费的结论。
现有实证证据不支持酒精营销禁令是减少酒精消费最佳选择的说法。
