Fitzgerald Niamh, Angus Kathryn, Howell Rebecca, Labhart Heather, Morris James, Fenton Laura, Woodrow Nicholas, Castellina Maria, Oldham Melissa, Garnett Claire, Holmes John, Brown Jamie, O'Donnell Rachel
Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Centre for Addictive Behaviours Research, London South Bank University, London, UK.
Addiction. 2025 Apr;120(4):655-668. doi: 10.1111/add.16743. Epub 2024 Dec 23.
Public perceptions of alcohol and its related harms and policies are shaped by multiple discourses and can influence behaviour and policy support. As part of a FrameWorks-informed project to test framing approaches to improve public understanding and support for evidence-based alcohol policies in the UK, this research aimed to (i) summarise relevant evidence; (ii) compare how public understanding of alcohol harms differs from those of academic and charity experts; and (iii) develop novel framing approaches.
(1) a literature review including systematic, scoping and targeted components to understand previous evidence on effective framing from behaviour change, UK alcohol policy and FrameWorks literatures; (2) comparison of public views of alcohol harms and policies from four focus groups (n = 20) with those of public health experts; (3) an iterative process involving workshops and stakeholder consultation to develop 12 novel framing approaches.
We found no previous study that directly tested framing approaches for alcohol policy advocacy. Our narrative summary of 35 studies found that explaining diverse harms may be important, whereas framing that engenders empathy, emphasises dependence or invokes a sense of crisis may be less effective. In focus groups, the public linked alcohol to pleasure/socialising, whilst understandings of harm focused on severe alcohol problems and individual deficits of biology or personality, with policy proposals focused mainly on treatment/support services. Public health experts highlighted more diverse harms and solutions, emphasising environmental and commercial causes. Comparison of public and expert views yielded six tasks for novel framing approaches to deepen public understanding. The team co-developed initial framing ideas (n = 31), before finalising 12 narrative framing approaches based on values (n = 5), metaphors (n = 3) and explanation (n = 4).
In the United Kingdom, public and expert understandings of alcoholrelated harms, causes and solutions differ. Along with prior evidence, these differences can inform novel framing approaches designed to deepen public understanding.
公众对酒精及其相关危害和政策的认知受多种话语影响，且会影响行为和政策支持。作为一个受框架理论启发的项目的一部分，该项目旨在测试框架构建方法以提高英国公众对循证酒精政策的理解和支持，本研究旨在：（i）总结相关证据；（ii）比较公众对酒精危害的理解与学术专家和慈善机构专家的理解有何不同；（iii）开发新颖的框架构建方法。
（1）进行文献综述，包括系统综述、范围综述和针对性综述，以了解行为改变、英国酒精政策和框架理论文献中关于有效框架构建的先前证据；（2）比较四个焦点小组（n = 20）对酒精危害和政策的公众观点与公共卫生专家的观点；（3）通过研讨会和利益相关者咨询的迭代过程，开发12种新颖的框架构建方法。
我们发现之前没有研究直接测试过用于酒精政策宣传的框架构建方法。我们对35项研究的叙述性总结发现，解释多种危害可能很重要，而引发同理心、强调依赖性或唤起危机感的框架构建可能效果较差。在焦点小组中，公众将酒精与愉悦/社交联系起来，对危害的理解集中在严重的酒精问题以及个人生物学或性格缺陷上，政策建议主要集中在治疗/支持服务上。公共卫生专家强调了更多样化的危害和解决方案，强调环境和商业原因。公众与专家观点的比较为新颖的框架构建方法提出了六项任务，以加深公众理解。该团队共同开发了初步的框架构建想法（n = 31），然后基于价值观（n = 5）、隐喻（n = 3）和解释（n = 4）确定了12种叙述性框架构建方法。
在英国，公众和专家对酒精相关危害、原因和解决方案的理解存在差异。连同先前的证据，这些差异可为旨在加深公众理解的新颖框架构建方法提供参考。
