IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0261280.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An evaluation of the evidence submitted to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations

Author

Listed:
  • Julia Stafford
  • Tanya Chikritzhs
  • Hannah Pierce
  • Simone Pettigrew

Abstract

Background: Industry self-regulation is the dominant approach to managing alcohol advertising in Australia and many other countries. There is a need to explore the barriers to government adoption of more effective regulatory approaches. This study examined relevance and quality features of evidence cited by industry and non-industry actors in their submissions to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations. Methods: Submissions to two public consultations with a primary focus on alcohol advertising policy were analysed. Submissions (n = 71) were classified into their actor type (industry or non-industry) and according to their expressed support for, or opposition to, increased regulation of alcohol advertising. Details of cited evidence were extracted and coded against a framework adapted from previous research (primary codes: subject matter relevance, type of publication, time since publication, and independence from industry). Evidence was also classified as featuring indicators of higher quality if it was either published in a peer-reviewed journal or academic source, published within 10 years of the consultation, and/or had no apparent industry connection. Results: Almost two-thirds of submissions were from industry actors (n = 45 submissions from alcohol, advertising, or sporting industries). With few exceptions, industry actor submissions opposed increased regulation of alcohol advertising and non-industry actor submissions supported increased regulation. Industry actors cited substantially less evidence than non-industry actors, both per submission and in total. Only 27% of evidence cited by industry actors was highly relevant and featured at least two indicators of higher quality compared to 58% of evidence cited by non-industry actors. Conclusions: Evaluation of the value of the evidentiary contribution of industry actors to consultations on alcohol advertising policy appears to be limited. Modifications to consultation processes, such as exclusion of industry actors, quality requirements for submitted evidence, minimum standards for referencing evidence, and requirements to declare potential conflicts, may improve the public health outcomes of policy consultations.

Suggested Citation

  • Julia Stafford & Tanya Chikritzhs & Hannah Pierce & Simone Pettigrew, 2021. "An evaluation of the evidence submitted to Australian alcohol advertising policy consultations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0261280
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261280
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261280
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0261280&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0261280?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Florentine Petronella Martino & Peter Graeme Miller & Kerri Coomber & Linda Hancock & Kypros Kypri, 2017. "Analysis of Alcohol Industry Submissions against Marketing Regulation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, January.
    2. Emily Savell & Anna B Gilmore & Gary Fooks, 2014. "How Does the Tobacco Industry Attempt to Influence Marketing Regulations? A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-10, February.
    3. Jim McCambridge & Ben Hawkins & Chris Holden, 2013. "Industry Use of Evidence to Influence Alcohol Policy: A Case Study of Submissions to the 2008 Scottish Government Consultation," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-6, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Linda Hancock & Natalie Ralph & Florentine Petronella Martino, 2018. "Applying Corporate Political Activity (CPA) analysis to Australian gambling industry submissions against regulation of television sports betting advertising," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-21, October.
    2. Scott, C. & Hawkins, B. & Knai, C., 2017. "Food and beverage product reformulation as a corporate political strategy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 37-45.
    3. Eastmure, Elizabeth & Cummins, Steven & Sparks, Leigh, 2020. "Non-market strategy as a framework for exploring commercial involvement in health policy: A primer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 262(C).
    4. Valente, Thomas W. & Pitts, Stephanie & Wipfli, Heather & Vega Yon, George G., 2019. "Network influences on policy implementation: Evidence from a global health treaty," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 188-197.
    5. John C. Boik, 2016. "Optimality of Social Choice Systems: Complexity, Wisdom, and Wellbeing Centrality," Working Paper 0005, Principled Societies Project, revised Mar 2017.
    6. Sibusiso Cyprian Nomatshila & Teke Ruffin Apalata & Sikhumbuzo A. Mabunda, 2021. "Perceptions of School Management on the Relationship between School Nutrition and Development of Non-Communicable Diseases in a Rural South African District: A Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-11, December.
    7. Ariel Bardach & Andrea Alcaraz & Javier Roberti & Agustín Ciapponi & Federico Augustovski & Andrés Pichon-Riviere, 2021. "Optimizing Tobacco Advertising Bans in Seven Latin American Countries: Microsimulation Modeling of Health and Financial Impact to Inform Evidence-Based Policy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-13, May.
    8. Benjamin Wood & Gary Ruskin & Gary Sacks, 2020. "How Coca-Cola Shaped the International Congress on Physical Activity and Public Health: An Analysis of Email Exchanges between 2012 and 2014," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Gary Sacks & Devorah Riesenberg & Melissa Mialon & Sarah Dean & Adrian J Cameron, 2020. "The characteristics and extent of food industry involvement in peer-reviewed research articles from 10 leading nutrition-related journals in 2018," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-15, December.
    10. Hawkins, Benjamin & Durrance-Bagale, Anna & Walls, Helen, 2021. "Co-regulation and alcohol industry political strategy: A case study of the Public Health England-Drinkaware Drink Free Days Campaign," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    11. Nason Maani Hessari & May CI van Schalkwyk & Sian Thomas & Mark Petticrew, 2019. "Alcohol Industry CSR Organisations: What Can Their Twitter Activity Tell Us about Their Independence and Their Priorities? A Comparative Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-12, March.
    12. Campbell, Norah & Mialon, Melissa & Reilly, Kathryn & Browne, Sarah & Finucane, Francis M., 2020. "How are frames generated? Insights from the industry lobby against the sugar tax in Ireland," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    13. Jenny L Hatchard & Joao Quariguasi Frota Neto & Christos Vasilakis & Karen A Evans-Reeves, 2019. "Tweeting about public health policy: Social media response to the UK Government’s announcement of a Parliamentary vote on draft standardised packaging regulations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    14. Adam Dinsmore & Liz Allen & Kevin Dolby, 2014. "Alternative Perspectives on Impact: The Potential of ALMs and Altmetrics to Inform Funders about Research Impact," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(11), pages 1-4, November.
    15. Patricia A McDaniel & Ruth E Malone, 2020. "Tobacco industry and public health responses to state and local efforts to end tobacco sales from 1969-2020," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(5), pages 1-25, May.
    16. Paibul Suriyawongpaisal & Roengrudee Patanavanich & Wichai Aekplakorn & Ignacio Martinez‐Moyano & Thanita Thongtan, 2021. "Paradox of sustainability in tobacco control in Thailand: A comprehensive assessment of three‐decade experiences," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 381-398, March.
    17. Simon Spedding, 2016. "Open Access Publishing of Health Research: Does Open Access Publishing Facilitate the Translation of Research into Health Policy and Practice?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, January.
    18. Thornton, Mary & Hawkins, Benjamin, 2017. "Between a rock and a hard place: Economic expansion and social responsibility in UK media discourses on the global alcohol industry," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 169-176.
    19. S. Cowlishaw, 2017. "Legitimate concerns about industry involvement in gambling research: response to Delfabbro and King (2017)," International Gambling Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 343-348, May.
    20. Mélissa Mialon & Eric Crosbie & Gary Sacks, 2020. "Mapping of food industry strategies to influence public health policy, research and practice in South Africa," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 65(7), pages 1027-1036, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0261280. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.