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

Display All Policies & Programs Contribute Content

Restrict drink specials that encourage over-consumption

Health Factors: Alcohol Use
Decision Makers: Government - Local, Government - State
Evidence Rating: Some Evidence
Population Reach: 1-9% of WI's population
Impact on Disparities: Likely to decrease disparities

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

Description

According to RAND-Imm (2007), such restrictions place limits or bans on events that promote binge drinking, such as happy hours, ladies' nights, all-you-can-drink specials, and unlimited beverages at a fixed price for a fixed period of time

Expected Beneficial Outcomes

Reduced binge drinking

Evidence of Effectiveness

RAND-Imm 2007 considers restricting drink specials an evidence-based strategy, as research has demonstrated that alcohol consumption, intoxication, and drinking/driving increase as the price of alcohol decreases--especially among minors. NIAAA-College drinking 2002 considers restricting drink specials a strategy with promise, but recommends incorporating a strong evaluation component to test effectiveness.

Implementation Examples

United States

Many states use a variety of policies to restrict “happy hours.” Such policies include total prohibition of "happy hours," prohibition of free beverages, increases in servings or volume of serving during a certain time period, and prizes.

Wisconsin

Wisconsin has enacted none of the laws that other states use to limit “happy hours.”

Citations - Evidence

NIAAA-College drinking 2002 - Task Force of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health (NIH). A call to action: Changing the culture of drinking at US colleges. Rockville: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA); 2002. Accessed on June 20, 2012
Webpage: http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/NIAAACollegeMaterials/TaskForce/TaskForce_TOC.aspx
RAND-Imm 2007 - Imm P, Chinman M, Wandersman A, Rosenbloom D, Guckenburg S, Leis R. Preventing underage drinking: Using Getting To Outcomes™ with the SAMHSA strategic prevention framework to achieve results. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation; 2007: Technical Report. Accessed on June 23, 2012
Webpage: http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR403.html

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