Classifying alcohol control policies with respect to expected changes in consumption and alcohol-attributable harm: The example of Lithuania, 2000–2019
posted on 2025-11-06, 22:58authored byJ Rehm, M Štelemėkas, C Ferreira-Borges, H Jiang, S Lange, M Neufeld, Robin RoomRobin Room, S Casswell, A Tran, J Manthey
Due to the high levels of alcohol use, alcohol-attributable mortality and burden of disease, and detrimental drinking patterns, Lithuania implemented a series of alcohol control policies within a relatively short period of time, between 2008 and 2019. Based on their expected impact on alcohol consumption and alcohol-attributable harm, as well as their target population, these policies have been classified using a set of objective criteria and expert opinion. The classification criteria included: positive vs. negative outcomes, mainly immediate vs. delayed outcomes, and general population vs. specific group outcomes. The judgement of the alcohol policy experts converged on the objective criteria, and, as a result, two tiers of intervention were identified: Tier 1—highly effective general population interventions with an anticipated immediate impact; Tier 2—other interventions aimed at the general population. In addition, interventions directed at specific populations were identified. This adaptable methodological approach to alcohol control policy classification is intended to provide guidance and support for the evaluation of alcohol policies elsewhere, to lay the foundation for the critical assessment of the policies to improve health and increase life expectancy, and to reduce crime and violence.<p></p>
Funding
The authors acknowledge funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), specifically from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), grant number 1R01AA028224-01. This research was conducted as part of the project entitled "Evaluation of the impact of alcohol control policies on morbidity and mortality in Lithuania and other Baltic states". Content is the responsibility of the authors and does not reflect the official positions of the NIAAA or the National Institutes of Health. This contribution was also supported by funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Institute of Neurosciences, and Mental Health and Addiction (CRISM Ontario Node grant no. SMN-13950).
History
Publication Date
2021-03-01
Journal
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health