73 research outputs found

    Minimum pricing of alcohol versus volumetric taxation:which policy will reduce heavy consumption without adversely affecting light and moderate consumers?

    Get PDF
    Background We estimate the effect on light, moderate and heavy consumers of alcohol from implementing a minimum unit price for alcohol (MUP) compared with a uniform volumetric tax. Methods We analyse scanner data from a panel survey of demographically representative households (n = 885) collected over a one-year period (24 Jan 2010–22 Jan 2011) in the state of Victoria, Australia, which includes detailed records of each household's off-trade alcohol purchasing. Findings The heaviest consumers (3% of the sample) currently purchase 20% of the total litres of alcohol (LALs), are more likely to purchase cask wine and full strength beer, and pay significantly less on average per standard drink compared to the lightest consumers (A1.31[951.31 [95% CI 1.20–1.41] compared to 2.21 [95% CI 2.10–2.31]). Applying a MUP of A1perstandarddrinkhasagreatereffectonreducingthemeanannualvolumeofalcoholpurchasedbytheheaviestconsumersofwine(15.78LALs[951 per standard drink has a greater effect on reducing the mean annual volume of alcohol purchased by the heaviest consumers of wine (15.78 LALs [95% CI 14.86–16.69]) and beer (1.85 LALs [95% CI 1.64–2.05]) compared to a uniform volumetric tax (9.56 LALs [95% CI 9.10–10.01] and 0.49 LALs [95% CI 0.46–0.41], respectively). A MUP results in smaller increases in the annual cost for the heaviest consumers of wine (393.60 [95% CI 374.19–413.00]) and beer (108.26[95108.26 [95% CI 94.76–121.75]), compared to a uniform volumetric tax (552.46 [95% CI 530.55–574.36] and $163.92 [95% CI 152.79–175.03], respectively). Both a MUP and uniform volumetric tax have little effect on changing the annual cost of wine and beer for light and moderate consumers, and likewise little effect upon their purchasing. Conclusions While both a MUP and a uniform volumetric tax have potential to reduce heavy consumption of wine and beer without adversely affecting light and moderate consumers, a MUP offers the potential to achieve greater reductions in heavy consumption at a lower overall annual cost to consumers

    Cervical cancer screening service utilisation in UK.

    Get PDF
    This study investigates empirically how past screening behaviour, individual and household characteristics affect the current uptake of cervical cancer screening in UK. For the conceptual framework, we use a modified Grossman model which is extended for non-economic factors. A dynamic version of a random effects panel probit model with initial conditions is estimated on the balanced sub-sample of the data. The analysis sample is restricted to women of age 16 and older and grouped into different age categories with respect to the NHS Cervical Screening Programme (NHSCSP). As dataset a balanced panel data of 857 women with 11,998 observations from the British Household Panel Study (BHPS) for the period from 1992 to 2008 is used for the analysis. Results suggest show that previous screening uptake, age, partner status, employment status and a previous GP visit have a significant influence on the likelihood of the uptake of cervical cancer screening

    Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research

    Get PDF
    Background An integrative theoretical framework, developed for cross-disciplinary implementation and other behaviour change research, has been applied across a wide range of clinical situations. This study tests the validity of this framework. Methods Validity was investigated by behavioural experts sorting 112 unique theoretical constructs using closed and open sort tasks. The extent of replication was tested by Discriminant Content Validation and Fuzzy Cluster Analysis. Results There was good support for a refinement of the framework comprising 14 domains of theoretical constructs (average silhouette value 0.29): 'Knowledge', 'Skills', 'Social/Professional Role and Identity', 'Beliefs about Capabilities', 'Optimism', 'Beliefs about Consequences', 'Reinforcement', 'Intentions', 'Goals', 'Memory, Attention and Decision Processes', 'Environmental Context and Resources', 'Social Influences', 'Emotions', and 'Behavioural Regulation'. Conclusions The refined Theoretical Domains Framework has a strengthened empirical base and provides a method for theoretically assessing implementation problems, as well as professional and other health-related behaviours as a basis for intervention development
    • …
    corecore