Alcohol Policies in US States, 1999-2018
Alcohol Policies in US States, 1999-2018
复制标题
DOI：
10.15288/jsad.2020.81.58
复制
发表时间：
2020-01-01
影响因子：
3.4
通讯作者：
Naimi, Timothy S.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Blanchette, Jason G.;Lira, Marlene C.;Naimi, Timothy S.
目的：美国政策制定者和公共卫生从业人员缺乏综合指标（指数）来评估和比较州一级酒精政策环境的限制性，其概念是在特定地点和时间内有效的多种政策的存在。本研究的目的是描述2018年美国各州和华盛顿特区的酒精政策环境，并研究过去20年的变化。方法：1999年至2018年各州酒精政策量表（APS）评分基于29项政策，对每项现行政策的有效性和执行程度进行加权。修改后的APS分数也在两组相互排斥的策略子组的基础上计算。结果：2018年的APS分数在各州之间差异很大，在0到100的理论范围内，从25.6到67.9不等；中位数得分为43.5分（基于0-100的范围），43个州的得分低于50分。从1999年到2018年，各州APS得分的中位数变化为正（+4.9，范围：-7.4至+10.3），表明政策环境的限制性增加，只有5个州下降。APS分数的增加主要是由于实施了更严格的损害驾驶法，而减少过度饮酒的政策没有改变。各州过度饮酒政策得分与驾驶障碍得分之间没有相关性（r = 0.05, p = 0.74）。结论：基于该政策尺度，很少有州存在限制性的政策环境。尽管在研究期间，各州采取了针对不良驾驶的政策，但减少过度饮酒的政策并没有变化。
Objective: U.S. policymakers and public health practitioners lack composite indicators (indices) to assess and compare the restrictiveness of state-level alcohol policy environments, conceptualized as the presence of multiple policies in effect in a particular place and time. The purposes of this study were to characterize the alcohol policy environment in each U.S. state and Washington, DC, in 2018, and to examine changes during the past 20 years. Method: State-specific Alcohol Policy Scale (APS) scores from 1999 to 2018 were based on 29 policies, after weighting each present policy by its efficacy and degree of implementation. Modified APS scores were also calculated on the basis of two sets of mutually exclusive policy subgroups. Results: APS scores in 2018 varied considerably between states, ranging from 25.6 to 67.9 on a theoretical scale of 0 to 100; the median score was 43.5 (based on a 0-100 range), and 43 states had scores less than 50. The median change in state APS scores from 1999 to 2018 was positive (+4.9, range: -7.4 to +10.3), indicating increases in the restrictiveness of policy environments, with decreases in only five states. The increases in APS scores were primarily attributable to the implementation of stronger impaired-driving laws, whereas policies to reduce excessive drinking were unchanged. There was no correlation between states' excessivedrinking policy scores and their impaired-driving scores (r =.05, p =.74). Conclusions: Based on this policy scale, few states have restrictive policy environments. Although states adopted policies targeting impaired driving during the study period, there was no change in policies to reduce excessive drinking.