Find Actions
What we know: There is limited and inconclusive evidence available on the effectiveness of labelling of alcoholic beverages. There is some suggestive evidence that alcohol warning labels may increase awareness but little to no effect on beliefs of risk and behaviour were reported (Siegfried and Parry, 2019; Burton et al., 2017). Voluntary implementation of labelling was suggested to be ineffective (Burton et al., 2017). Siegfried and Parry, (2019) identified one review that examined the effects of labelling of 'low alcohol' beverages, but the evidence of efficacy was deemed uncertain.
What we know: There is limited and inconclusive evidence available on the effectiveness of social marketing approaches for providing information and education about alcohol. Burton et al., (2017) identified one review examining this approach that suggested mixed findings of impact on risky drinking and behaviour but no conclusive statements could be made.
Types of identified restrictions: limits on alcohol content; limits on beverage container sizes.
What we know: There is limited and inconclusive evidence available on the effectiveness of restrictions on alcohol content and packaging. Anderson et al., (2018) identified a review that suggested the likelihood that reductions in average alcohol content of beverages could reduce alcohol-related harm. There is a dearth of studies examining the efficacy of portion size on alcohol consumption (Siegfried and Parry, 2019).
What we know: Hypothecation reserves the revenue from taxation measures for a particular purpose. In the case of alcohol, several studies have indicated that this approach could be used to offset the healthcare system costs of alcohol-related harm including funding of alcohol treatment services, supporting the overall healthcare system and/or supporting those most affected by alcohol use esp. low incomes (Hatchard et al., 2023).
Types of restrictions: restrictions on days/hours of alcohol sales for off-premise outlets; restrictions on days/hours of alcohol sales for on-premise outlets.
What we know: Greater physical availability of alcohol via high outlet density and greater days/hours of sales are known to be associated with increased alcohol consumption and public health harm including injuries and violence (Anderson et al., 2018; Burton et al., 2017; Fitzgerald et al., 2016; Siegfried and Parry, 2019; Sherk et al., 2018). Restricting hours of sales can effectively reduce alcohol-related health harms (Anderson et al., 2018), particularly when working to reduce late-night hours of on-trade sales (Burton et al., 2017). This approach can be cost-effective when combined with enforcement measures and targeting of areas with the highest alcohol outlet density (Burton et al., 2017). Restricting the physical availability of take-away alcohol is also reported as an effective way to reduce per capita alcohol consumption (Sherk et al., 2018).
What we know: Greater physical availability of alcohol via high outlet density and greater days/hours of sales are known to be associated with increased alcohol consumption and public health harm including injuries and violence (Anderson et al., 2018; Burton et al., 2017; Fitzgerald et al., 2016; Siegfried and Parry, 2019; Sherk et al., 2018). Restrictions on days/hours of sale are cost-effective when combined with enforcement measures and targeting of areas with the highest alcohol outlet density (Burton et al., 2017). The strength of evidence is greater for demonstrating the relationship between higher outlet density and increased alcohol consumption than the policies restricting availability but there is highly suggestive evidence that reducing outlet density would reduce alcohol-related harms. Restricting the physical availability of take-away alcohol is also reported as an effective way to reduce per capita alcohol consumption (Sherk et al., 2018).
Types of identified restrictions: Restrictions in public places; restrictions to protect children from exposure.
What we know: Well-established evidence indicates that exposure to alcohol advertising can negatively impact health through increasing appeal, purchasing and/or consumption (Anderson et al., 2018; Siegfried and Parry, 2019). Increased volume of advertising exposure is associated with greater alcohol-related consumption and harm (Anderson et al., 2018). There are few real-world evaluations of alcohol advertising restrictions but international modelling indicates that complete advertising bans are more effective than partial or voluntary bans at reducing alcohol-related morbidity and mortality (Burton et al., 2017). Self-regulatory marketing codes for the alcohol industry have shown limited effectiveness, with evaluations indicating multiple violations of content guidelines (Burton et al., 2017).
What we know: Graduated driver licensing programmes are effective for reducing drink-driving and associated-harms (e.g. road traffic crashes, causalities, and fatalities) and appear to be cost-effective but investment in resourcing is required (Burton et al., 2017).
What we know: Alcohol ignition interlock devices appear to be effective for preventing re-arrest rates for drink driving (Burton et al., 2017; Siegfried and Parry, 2019), but less conclusive evidence shows their efficacy for reducing alcohol-related crashes (Siegfried and Parry, 2019). This intervention also has evidence of being cost-effective (Burton et al., 2017).
What we know: Immediate licence revocation has shown to be effective in North America for reducing drink-driving and causalities and fatalities at a greater rate than other existing punishments set by judicial review, but transferability could be limited (Burton et al., 2017).
Our Funder
Connect
| www.phiuk.org/local-health-global-profits | |
 |
showcase/local-health-global-profits |
 |
@lhgp.bsky.social |
| [email protected] | |
| sign up to our newsletter |
© University of Bath, 2026