Search

• Alcohol policies that protect public health do not necessarily harm bars. • 'Sweetspot' policies are those which can improve public health without affecting hospitality businesses. • There is good evidence that increasing the price of shop-bought alcohol is a sweetspot policy. • Restricting remote/online alcohol sales is also a likely sweetspot policy. • Measures to shape or manage the night-time economy are less well supported by evidence. During COVID-19, hospitality businesses (e.g. bars, restaurants) were closed/restricted whilst off-sales of alcohol increased, with health consequences. Post-covid, governments face lobbying to support such businesses, but many health services remain under pressure. We appraised 'sweetspot' policy options: those with potential to benefit public services and health, whilst avoiding or minimising negative impact on the hospitality sector. We conducted rapid non-systematic evidence reviews using index papers, citation searches and team knowledge to summarise the literature relating to four possible 'sweetspot' policy areas: pricing interventions (9 systematic reviews (SR); 14 papers/reports); regulation of online sales (1 SR; 1 paper); place-shaping (2 SRs; 18 papers/reports); and violence reduction initiatives (9 SRs; 24 papers/reports); and led two expert workshops (n = 11). Interventions that raise the price of cheaper shop-bought alcohol appear promising as 'sweetspot' policies; any impact on hospitality is likely small and potentially positive. Restrictions on online sales such as speed or timing of delivery may reduce harm and diversion of consumption from on-trade to home settings. Place-shaping is not well-supported by evidence and experts were sceptical. Reduced late-night trading hours likely reduce violence; evidence of impact on hospitality is scant. Other violence reduction initiatives may modestly reduce harms whilst supporting hospitality, but require resources to deliver multiple measures simultaneously in partnership. Available evidence and expert views point to regulation of pricing and online sales as having greatest potential as 'sweetspot' alcohol policies, reducing alcohol harm whilst minimising negative impact on hospitality businesses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is limited provision of inpatient detoxification relative to other treatments for alcohol and other drug (AOD) use. This means people often need to wait prior to detoxifying. However, waiting for healthcare is generally perceived as negative and stressful. This paper aims to understand patients' experiences of waiting for inpatient AOD detoxification to ascertain whether and how service-level policies and practices might be improved. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 32 people (20 males, 12 females; aged 25–67 years) who were waiting for inpatient detoxification. Data collection was part of a wider evaluation of a policy initiative started in 2021 to increase detoxification service capacity in England, UK. Interviews were professionally transcribed and data on waiting experiences were coded using qualitative software. Analyses were informed by new materialist thinking and undertaken via Iterative Categorisation. We found that waiting was constituted through five dimensions: i. duration; ii. support; iii. information; iv. preparations; and v. emotions. These five dimensions were multi-faceted and operated in and through wider interacting social, material, and affective forces (e.g., professional judgements, formal and informal relationships, the availability of beds and funding, bureaucratic procedures, the utility and relevance of information, and participants' diverse feelings, including desperation for treatment). Not all accounts of waiting were negative. The experience was complex, non-uniform and variable over time. Moreover, it affected how people felt and how they behaved. Changes to service-level policies and practices can potentially minimise the stress of waiting for inpatient AOD detoxification. The negative impact of waiting may be reduced if professionals more consistently engage patients in a wider range of constructive pre-treatment activities, offer regular 'check-ins' to mitigate any anxiety, explain changes in wait duration to help with planning and demonstrate fairness, and facilitate contact between those waiting to lessen feelings of isolation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cannabis legalization in some U.S.A. states has catapulted the mass production of concentrates, with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) concentrations ranging from 50-90%. A major public health concern is that these products will increase cannabis-related harms such as use disorders, psychotic symptoms, and accidental poisonings. This paper describes and contextualizes the results of a study requested by the WA State Legislature to understand perspectives of WA stakeholders on the topic. Concept Mapping (CM), a mixed-methods research approach that supports people-centered policy decisions was utilized. The goal of the study was to explore stakeholders' concern levels and support of policies to address the availability of high THC cannabis products. For analysis purposes, stakeholders were categorized into three groups: community, professionals, and cannabis advocates. CM generated an inventory of policy ideas for regulating high-potency cannabis from a variety of stakeholders. Notably, stakeholders from community and professional groups supported environmental policy changes such as such as taxation, increasing minimum age for high concentration cannabis products, and advertising prohibition. Meanwhile, cannabis advocates (mostly industry actors) opposed taxation per THC content, proposed lowering taxes, and supported policies with low population impact such as educating parents, teachers, and youth. Support for regulating high concentration THC products varied by stakeholder group. Consistent with how other health compromising industries have historically acted, cannabis industry stakeholders rejected regulation of their products. Future studies should explore non-cannabis industry stakeholders' willingness to work towards minimizing the influence of the cannabis industry in policy development processes to assure public health regulations prevail. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]