PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: There are only two major statements which define alcohol policy development at the global level. There has not been any comparative analysis of the details of these key texts, published in 2010 and 2022 respectively, including how far they constitute similar or evolving approaches to alcohol harm.
METHODS: Preparatory data collection involved examination of documents associated with the final policy statements. A thematic analysis across the two policy documents was performed to generate understanding of continuity and change based on comparative study. Study findings are interpreted in the contexts of the evolving conceptual and empirical literatures.
RESULTS: Both documents exhibit shared guiding principles and identify similar governance challenges, albeit with varying priority levels. There is more emphasis on the high-impact interventions on price, availability and marketing in 2022, and more stringent targets have been set for 2030 in declaring alcohol as a public health priority therein, reflecting the action-oriented nature of the Plan. The identified roles of policy actors have largely remained unchanged, albeit with greater specificity in the more recent statement, appropriately so because it is concerned with implementation. The major exception, and the key difference in the documents, regards the alcohol industry, which is perceived primarily as a threat to public health in 2022 due to commercial activities harmful to health and because policy interference has slowed progress.
CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of the Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022-30 potentially marks a pivotal moment in global alcohol policy development, though it is unclear how fully it may be implemented. Perhaps, the key advances lie in advancing the ambitions of alcohol policy and clearly identifying that the alcohol industry should not be seen as any kind of partner in public health policymaking, which will permit progress to the extent that this influences what actually happens in alcohol policy at the national level.
METHODS: Preparatory data collection involved examination of documents associated with the final policy statements. A thematic analysis across the two policy documents was performed to generate understanding of continuity and change based on comparative study. Study findings are interpreted in the contexts of the evolving conceptual and empirical literatures.
RESULTS: Both documents exhibit shared guiding principles and identify similar governance challenges, albeit with varying priority levels. There is more emphasis on the high-impact interventions on price, availability and marketing in 2022, and more stringent targets have been set for 2030 in declaring alcohol as a public health priority therein, reflecting the action-oriented nature of the Plan. The identified roles of policy actors have largely remained unchanged, albeit with greater specificity in the more recent statement, appropriately so because it is concerned with implementation. The major exception, and the key difference in the documents, regards the alcohol industry, which is perceived primarily as a threat to public health in 2022 due to commercial activities harmful to health and because policy interference has slowed progress.
CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of the Global Alcohol Action Plan 2022-30 potentially marks a pivotal moment in global alcohol policy development, though it is unclear how fully it may be implemented. Perhaps, the key advances lie in advancing the ambitions of alcohol policy and clearly identifying that the alcohol industry should not be seen as any kind of partner in public health policymaking, which will permit progress to the extent that this influences what actually happens in alcohol policy at the national level.
摘要：
背景：在全球范围内定义酒精政策制定的主要声明只有两个。没有对这些关键案文的细节进行比较分析,分别于2010年和2022年出版，包括它们在多大程度上构成了类似或不断发展的酒精伤害方法。
方法：准备数据收集包括检查与最终政策声明相关的文件。在比较研究的基础上，对两份政策文件进行了专题分析，以了解连续性和变化。研究结果是在不断发展的概念和实证文献的背景下进行解释的。
结果：两份文件都展示了共同的指导原则，并确定了类似的治理挑战，尽管优先级不同。更强调对价格的高影响力干预，2022年的可用性和营销，并在2030年制定了更严格的目标，将酒精宣布为公共卫生重点，反映了该计划面向行动的性质。确定的政策行为者的作用基本上没有变化，尽管在最近的声明中具有更大的特殊性，这是恰当的，因为它与实施有关。最大的例外,以及文件中的关键区别，关于酒精行业，由于对健康有害的商业活动以及政策干预减缓了进展，这主要被认为是对2022年公共卫生的威胁。
结论：《2022-30年全球酒精行动计划》的通过可能标志着全球酒精政策制定的关键时刻。虽然目前还不清楚它可以如何充分实施。也许,关键进展在于推进酒精政策的雄心，并清楚地确定酒精行业不应被视为公共卫生政策制定中的任何合作伙伴，这将允许进展到影响国家层面酒精政策实际发生的事情的程度。
方法：准备数据收集包括检查与最终政策声明相关的文件。在比较研究的基础上，对两份政策文件进行了专题分析，以了解连续性和变化。研究结果是在不断发展的概念和实证文献的背景下进行解释的。
结果：两份文件都展示了共同的指导原则，并确定了类似的治理挑战，尽管优先级不同。更强调对价格的高影响力干预，2022年的可用性和营销，并在2030年制定了更严格的目标，将酒精宣布为公共卫生重点，反映了该计划面向行动的性质。确定的政策行为者的作用基本上没有变化，尽管在最近的声明中具有更大的特殊性，这是恰当的，因为它与实施有关。最大的例外,以及文件中的关键区别，关于酒精行业，由于对健康有害的商业活动以及政策干预减缓了进展，这主要被认为是对2022年公共卫生的威胁。
结论：《2022-30年全球酒精行动计划》的通过可能标志着全球酒精政策制定的关键时刻。虽然目前还不清楚它可以如何充分实施。也许,关键进展在于推进酒精政策的雄心，并清楚地确定酒精行业不应被视为公共卫生政策制定中的任何合作伙伴，这将允许进展到影响国家层面酒精政策实际发生的事情的程度。
