Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies and programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol
Open accessAbstract
This paper reviews the evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies and programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol, in the areas of education and information, the health sector, community action, driving while under the influence of alcohol (drink-driving), availability, marketing, pricing, harm reduction, and illegally and informally produced alcohol. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses show that policies regulating the environment in which alcohol is marketed (particularly its price and availability) are effective in reducing alcohol-related harm. Enforced legislative measures to reduce drink-driving and individually directed interventions to already at-risk drinkers are also effective. However, school-based education does not reduce alcohol-related harm, although public information and education-type programmes have a role in providing information and in increasing attention and acceptance of alcohol on political and public agendas. Making alcohol more expensive and less available, and banning alcohol advertising, are highly cost-effective strategies to reduce harm. In settings with high amounts of unrecorded production and consumption, increasing the proportion of alcohol that is taxed could be a more effective pricing policy than a simple increase in tax.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Screening and brief intervention (SBI) is a cost-effective public health approach to addressing substance use problems.
“Screening and brief intervention is a cost-effective, efficacious, and easy to scale public health approach to addressing substance use problems.”
From Adapting a substance use screening and brief intervention for peer-delivery and for youth in Kenya (2023) · cites this paper as Anderson et al., 2009
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 114 · Cited by 1,102
- Authors
- Anderson, P., Chisholm, D., & Fuhr, D. C.
- Affiliations
- Maastricht University (NL)
- World Health Organization (CH)
- Freie Universität Berlin (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Anderson, Peter
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-06
- Volume
- 373
- Issue
- 9682
- Pages
- 2234-2246
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- OpenAlex
- W2139691282
- Cited by
- 1,102
- References
- 114
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 100 · 2019: 59 · 2018: 84 · 2017: 91 · 2016: 80 · 2015: 89 · 2014: 92 · 2013: 88 · 2012: 75
- FWCI
- 9.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- The Lancet (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
- Keywords
- alcohol-related harm, alcohol policy, cost-effectiveness, alcohol pricing, alcohol availability, alcohol marketing regulation, alcohol advertising ban, drunk driving, information campaigns, harm reduction, alcohol taxation, at-risk drinkers, community action
- MeSH terms
- Advertising, Alcoholic Beverages, Alcoholism, Automobile Driving, Community Participation, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Health Education, Health Policy, Health Promotion, Health Services Needs and Demand, Humans, Information Services, Politics, School Health Services, Taxes, Global Health, Program Evaluation, Social Marketing, Harm Reduction, Evidence-Based Practice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review