Restricting or banning alcohol advertising to reduce alcohol consumption in adults and adolescents

摘要: Background Alcohol is estimated to be the fifth leading risk factor for global disability-adjusted life years. Restricting or banning alcohol advertising may reduce exposure posed by at individual and general population level. To date, no systematic review has evaluated effectiveness, possible harms cost-effectiveness of this intervention. Objectives To evaluate benefits, costs restricting alcohol, via any format, compared with restrictions counter-advertising, on consumption in adults adolescents. Search methods We searched Cochrane Drugs Alcohol Group Specialised Register (May 2014); CENTRAL (Issue 5, MEDLINE (1966 28 May EMBASE (1974 PsychINFO (June 2013); five marketing databases October 2013. We also seven conference www.clinicaltrials.gov http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/ checked reference lists all studies identified those relevant reviews guidelines, contacted researchers, policymakers other experts field published unpublished data, regardless language. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), clinical trials, prospective retrospective cohort studies, before-and-after interrupted time series (ITS) that restriction format including press, television, radio, internet, billboards, social media product placement films. The data could (adults adolescent) level. Data collection analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected Collaboration. Main results We one small RCT (80 male student participants conducted Netherlands 2009) three ITS (general Canadian provinces 1970s 80s). The found young men exposed movies a low-alcohol content drank less than high-alcohol (mean difference (MD) -0.65 drinks; 95% CI -1.2, -0.07; p value = 0.03, very-low-quality evidence). Young commercials neutral (MD -0.73 -1.30, -0.16; 0.01, Outcomes were assessed immediately after end intervention (lasting 1.5 hours), so follow-up available. Using Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development Evaluation approach, quality evidence was rated as very low due serious bias, indirectness level imprecision. Two implementation an ban study lifting such ban. Each different type (partial full) degrees during control period. results from inconsistent. A meta-analysis two showed overall mean non-significant increase beer 1.10% following (95% -5.26, 7.47; 0.43; I2 83%, This finding consistent increase, difference, decrease consumption. In evaluating total forms partial spirits only, which utilised Abrupt Auto-regressive Integrated Moving Average model, volume sales decreased 11.11 kilolitres -27.56, 5.34; 0.19) per month lifted. wine increased 14.89 0.39, 29.39; 0.04) 1.15 -0.91, 3.21; 0.27), respectively, statistically significantly 22.49 -36.83, -8.15; 0.002). GRADE high bias arising lack randomisation imprecision results. No prespecified outcomes (including economic loss hardship sales) addressed adverse effects reported studies. None funded industries. Authors' conclusions There robust against recommending restrictions. Advertising should implemented within high-quality, well-monitored research programme ensure evaluation over order build base.