Rehm Jürgen, Shield Kevin, Hassan Ahmed S, Franklin Ari
Institute for Mental Health Policy Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Ursula Franklin Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2S1, Canada; Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Ursula Franklin Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2S1, Canada; PAHO/WHO Collaborating Centre at CAMH, Toronto, Canada & WHO European Region Collaborating Centre at the Public Health Institute of Catalonia, Roc Boronat Street 81 - 95, 08005, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M7, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 250 College Street, 8th floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 1R8, Canada; Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Medical Sciences Building, 1 King's College Circle, Room 2374, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 1A8, Canada; Center for Interdisciplinary Addiction Research (ZIS), Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Martinistraße 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany; Program on Substance Abuse & WHO European Region Collaboration Centre, Public Health Agency of Catalonia, Roc Boronat Street 81 - 95, 08005, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.
Institute for Mental Health Policy Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Ursula Franklin Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2S1, Canada; Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Ursula Franklin Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2S1, Canada; PAHO/WHO Collaborating Centre at CAMH, Toronto, Canada & WHO European Region Collaborating Centre at the Public Health Institute of Catalonia, Roc Boronat Street 81 - 95, 08005, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M7, Canada.
Alcohol. 2024 Dec;121:19-25. doi: 10.1016/j.alcohol.2024.07.002. Epub 2024 Jul 14.
Yearly adult per capita consumption of alcohol in China between 2016 and 2019 decreased by 2.4 L of pure alcohol, or 33%. According to the World Health Organization, this decrease in consumption was accompanied by reductions in alcohol-attributable mortality of 23% between 2015 and 2019. This paper examines the contribution of alcohol control policies in China to these public health gains. A systematic search of the literature was conducted on alcohol control policies and their effectiveness in China as part of a larger search of all countries in WHO Western Pacific Region. In addition to articles on empirical evidence on the impact of such alcohol control policies, we also searched for reviews. The plausibility of changes of traditional alcohol control policies (taxation increases, availability restrictions, restriction on advertisement and marketing, drink-driving laws, screening and brief interventions) in explaining reductions of consumption levels and attributable mortality rates was explored. There was some progress in the successful implementation of strict drink-driving policies, which could explain reductions in traffic injuries, including fatalities. Other traditional alcohol control policies seem to have played a minimal role in reducing alcohol consumption and attributable harms during the time period 2016-2019. However, an anti-corruption campaign was extensive enough to have substantially contributed to these reductions. The campaign prohibited the consumption of alcoholic beverages in everyday life of government officials and thus contributed to a de-normalization of alcohol. While this anti-corruption campaign was the only policy to potentially explain marked decreases in levels of alcohol consumption and attributable mortality, more detailed research is required to determine exactly how the campaign achieved these decreases.
2016年至2019年间，中国成年人的人均年酒精消费量减少了2.4升纯酒精，降幅达33%。据世界卫生组织称，消费量的下降伴随着2015年至2019年间酒精所致死亡率降低了23%。本文探讨了中国的酒精控制政策对这些公共卫生成果的贡献。作为对世界卫生组织西太平洋区域所有国家进行的一项更大规模检索的一部分，我们对中国酒精控制政策及其有效性进行了系统的文献检索。除了关于此类酒精控制政策影响的实证证据的文章外，我们还检索了综述。探讨了传统酒精控制政策（提高税收、限制供应、限制广告和营销、酒驾法律、筛查和简短干预）在解释消费水平和归因死亡率下降方面的合理性。在严格酒驾政策的成功实施方面取得了一些进展，这可以解释交通伤害（包括死亡）的减少。在2016年至2019年期间，其他传统酒精控制政策在减少酒精消费和归因危害方面似乎发挥了最小作用。然而，一场反腐败运动范围广泛，对这些降幅有重大贡献。该运动禁止政府官员在日常生活中饮用酒精饮料，从而促成了酒精的去常态化。虽然这场反腐败运动是唯一有可能解释酒精消费水平和归因死亡率显著下降的政策，但需要更详细的研究来确切确定该运动是如何实现这些下降的。
