Health Behaviors Tobacco Use Diet & Exercise Alcohol Use Sexual Activity Search Policies & Programs

Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Restrict alcohol advertising placement

Health Factors: Alcohol Use
Decision Makers: Community Organizations, Government - Local, Government - State, Government - Federal, Schools
Evidence Rating: Expert Opinion
Population Reach: 50-99% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: No impact on disparities likely

Is this program or policy in use in your community? Tell us about it.

Description

Efforts to restrict alcohol advertisements include local ordinances, state laws, or voluntarily applied efforts in various settings.

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Decreased impaired driving
Reduced underage drinking

Evidence of Effectiveness

Restricting alcohol advertisements is a suggested strategy to reduce underage drinking (IOM 2004, WHO 2007). Available evidence suggests that restricting alcohol advertising is associated with more positive attitudes toward drinking in young people and reductions in premature deaths (IAS-Anderson 2006).

Implementation Examples

United States

Oakland, California is one city with an ordinance restricting alcohol advertisements. Adopted in 1998, the ordinance prohibits alcohol ads on billboards in residential areas and near schools. It also bans alcohol advertising within three blocks of recreation centers, churches, and licensed day care facilities (UMN-Alcohol epidemiology).

Implementation Resources

PIRE-Alcohol advertising 2004 - Center for the Study of Law and Enforcement Policy (CSLEP), Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE). Model statutory language restricting alcohol advertising and alcohol sponsorship in state publications and on property owned, leased, or operated by the state. Baltimore: Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (CAMY); 2004. Accessed on June 29, 2012
Webpage: http://www.camy.org/action/Legal_Resources/Commercial_Speech_Stats.pdf
UMN-Alcohol epidemiology - University of Minnesota Alcohol Epidemiology Program. Alcohol control policy descriptions. Accessed on June 21, 2012
Webpage: http://www.epi.umn.edu/alcohol/policy/index.shtm

Citations - Evidence

IAS-Anderson 2006 - Anderson P, Baumberg B. Alcohol in Europe: A public health perspective. London: Institute of Alcohol Studies (IAS); 2006. Accessed on June 18, 2012
Webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/health-eu/news_alcoholineurope_en.htm
IOM 2004 - Institute of Medicine (IOM), National Research Council (NRC), Committee on Developing a Strategy to Reduce and Prevent Underage Drinking, Board on Children, Youth, and Families (BCYF). Reducing underage drinking: A collective responsibility. (Bonnie RJ, O’Connell ME, eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2004. Accessed on June 8, 2012
Webpage: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309089352
WHO 2007 - World Health Organization (WHO). Evidence-based strategies and interventions to reduce alcohol-related harm. 2007. Accessed on June 23, 2012
Webpage: http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA60/A60_14-en.pdf

Citations - Implementation Examples

UMN-Alcohol epidemiology - University of Minnesota Alcohol Epidemiology Program. Alcohol control policy descriptions. Accessed on June 21, 2012
Webpage: http://www.epi.umn.edu/alcohol/policy/index.shtm

Comments from Users about this Policy/Program (Cost, Feasibility, Lessons Learned)

No comments

X
 

Health Factors

Health Behaviors
Tobacco Use
Diet & Exercise
Alcohol Use
Sexual Activity
 Clinical Care
Access to Care
Quality of Care
 Social & Economic Factors
Education
Employment
Income
Family & Social Support
Community Safety
 Physical Environment
Environmental Quality
Built Environment

Decision Makers

Businesses & Employers
Community Organizations
Government - Local
Government - State
Government - Federal
Healthcare Organizations
Individuals
Schools

Evidence Rating

Level of effectiveness based on a scan of academic literature and key recommendations of leading organizations.

  • Scientifically Supported Numerous studies or systematic review(s) with positive results
  • Some Evidence Research suggests positive impacts; further study may be warranted
  • Expert Opinion Recommended by credible groups*; research evidence limited
  • Insufficient Evidence Evidence limited or unavailable; further study warranted
  • Mixed Evidence Evidence mixed; further study warranted
  • Evidence of Ineffectiveness Research consistently shows program is detrimental or has no effect

Although many policies and programs are recommended by credible groups, we apply the rating ‘expert opinion’ only when policies are recommended but limited scientific evidence of effectiveness is available.

* The American Heritage Dictionary defines credible as 'capable of being believed; plausible.' and 'worthy of confidence; reliable.' To be considered an 'expert recommendation,' policies and programs must be recommended by one or more organizations that are recognized for their impartial expertise in the area of interest and have limited evidence available.

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Population Reach

Portion of Wisconsin's population likely to be reached by a policy or program if implemented statewide, based on its characteristics (e.g., target population(s), geographic limitations, and potential implementers).

<1%   20-49%
1-9%   50-99%
10-19%   100%

Potential Impact on Health Disparities

Likely impact of a given policy or program on racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, geographic or other disparities in Wisconsin based on its characteristics (e.g., target audience, mode of delivery, etc.) and best available evidence related to disparities.

  • Likely to decrease disparities
  • No impact on disparities likely
  • Likely to increase disparities