Explore the vast range of titles available.

BackgroundDeaths directly linked to COVID-19 infection may be misclassified, and the pandemic may have indirectly affected other causes of death. To overcome these measurement challenges, we estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mortality, life expectancy and lifespan inequality from week 10 of 2020, when the first COVID-19 death was registered, to week 47 ending 20 November 2020 in England and Wales through an analysis of excess mortality.MethodsWe estimated age and sex-specific excess mortality risk and deaths above a baseline adjusted for seasonality with a systematic comparison of four different models using data from the Office for National Statistics. We additionally provide estimates of life expectancy at birth and lifespan inequality defined as the SD in age at death.ResultsThere have been 57 419 (95% prediction interval: 54 197, 60 752) excess deaths in the first 47 weeks of 2020, 55% of which occurred in men. Excess deaths increased sharply with age and men experienced elevated risks of death in all age groups. Life expectancy at birth dropped 0.9 and 1.2 years for women and men relative to the 2019 levels, respectively. Lifespan inequality also fell over the same period by 5 months for both sexes.ConclusionQuantifying excess deaths and their impact on life expectancy at birth provide a more comprehensive picture of the burden of COVID-19 on mortality. Whether mortality will return to—or even fall below—the baseline level remains to be seen as the pandemic continues to unfold and diverse interventions are put in place.

Several countries are considering a minimum price policy for alcohol, but concerns exist about the potential effects on drinkers with low incomes. We aimed to assess the effect of a £0·45 minimum unit price (1 unit is 8 g/10 mL ethanol) in England across the income and socioeconomic distributions. We used the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model (SAPM) version 2.6, a causal, deterministic, epidemiological model, to assess effects of a minimum unit price policy. SAPM accounts for alcohol purchasing and consumption preferences for population subgroups including income and socioeconomic groups. Purchasing preferences are regarded as the types and volumes of alcohol beverages, prices paid, and the balance between on-trade (eg, bars) and off-trade (eg, shops). We estimated price elasticities from 9 years of survey data and did sensitivity analyses with alternative elasticities. We assessed effects of the policy on moderate, hazardous, and harmful drinkers, split into three socioeconomic groups (living in routine or manual households, intermediate households, and managerial or professional households). We examined policy effects on alcohol consumption, spending, rates of alcohol-related health harm, and opportunity costs associated with that harm. Rates of harm and costs were estimated for a 10 year period after policy implementation. We adjusted baseline rates of mortality and morbidity to account for differential risk between socioeconomic groups. Overall, a minimum unit price of £0·45 led to an immediate reduction in consumption of 1·6% (−11·7 units per drinker per year) in our model. Moderate drinkers were least affected in terms of consumption (−3·8 units per drinker per year for the lowest income quintile vs 0·8 units increase for the highest income quintile) and spending (increase in spending of £0·04 vs £1·86 per year). The greatest behavioural changes occurred in harmful drinkers (change in consumption of −3·7% or −138·2 units per drinker per year, with a decrease in spending of £4·01), especially in the lowest income quintile (−7·6% or −299·8 units per drinker per year, with a decrease in spending of £34·63) compared with the highest income quintile (−1·0% or −34·3 units, with an increase in spending of £16·35). Estimated health benefits from the policy were also unequally distributed. Individuals in the lowest socioeconomic group (living in routine or manual worker households and comprising 41·7% of the sample population) would accrue 81·8% of reductions in premature deaths and 87·1% of gains in terms of quality-adjusted life-years. Irrespective of income, moderate drinkers were little affected by a minimum unit price of £0·45 in our model, with the greatest effects noted for harmful drinkers. Because harmful drinkers on low incomes purchase more alcohol at less than the minimum unit price threshold compared with other groups, they would be affected most by this policy. Large reductions in consumption in this group would however coincide with substantial health gains in terms of morbidity and mortality related to reduced alcohol consumption. UK Medical Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council (grant G1000043).

While evidence that alcohol pricing policies reduce alcohol-related health harm is robust, and alcohol taxation increases are a WHO \"best buy\" intervention, there is a lack of research comparing the scale and distribution across society of health impacts arising from alternative tax and price policy options. The aim of this study is to test whether four common alcohol taxation and pricing strategies differ in their impact on health inequalities. An econometric epidemiological model was built with England 2014/2015 as the setting. Four pricing strategies implemented on top of the current tax were equalised to give the same 4.3% population-wide reduction in total alcohol-related mortality: current tax increase, a 13.4% all-product duty increase under the current UK system; a value-based tax, a 4.0% ad valorem tax based on product price; a strength-based tax, a volumetric tax of £0.22 per UK alcohol unit (= 8 g of ethanol); and minimum unit pricing, a minimum price threshold of £0.50 per unit, below which alcohol cannot be sold. Model inputs were calculated by combining data from representative household surveys on alcohol purchasing and consumption, administrative and healthcare data on 43 alcohol-attributable diseases, and published price elasticities and relative risk functions. Outcomes were annual per capita consumption, consumer spending, and alcohol-related deaths. Uncertainty was assessed via partial probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) and scenario analysis. The pricing strategies differ as to how effects are distributed across the population, and, from a public health perspective, heavy drinkers in routine/manual occupations are a key group as they are at greatest risk of health harm from their drinking. Strength-based taxation and minimum unit pricing would have greater effects on mortality among drinkers in routine/manual occupations (particularly for heavy drinkers, where the estimated policy effects on mortality rates are as follows: current tax increase, -3.2%; value-based tax, -2.9%; strength-based tax, -6.1%; minimum unit pricing, -7.8%) and lesser impacts among drinkers in professional/managerial occupations (for heavy drinkers: current tax increase, -1.3%; value-based tax, -1.4%; strength-based tax, +0.2%; minimum unit pricing, +0.8%). Results from the PSA give slightly greater mean effects for both the routine/manual (current tax increase, -3.6% [95% uncertainty interval (UI) -6.1%, -0.6%]; value-based tax, -3.3% [UI -5.1%, -1.7%]; strength-based tax, -7.5% [UI -13.7%, -3.9%]; minimum unit pricing, -10.3% [UI -10.3%, -7.0%]) and professional/managerial occupation groups (current tax increase, -1.8% [UI -4.7%, +1.6%]; value-based tax, -1.9% [UI -3.6%, +0.4%]; strength-based tax, -0.8% [UI -6.9%, +4.0%]; minimum unit pricing, -0.7% [UI -5.6%, +3.6%]). Impacts of price changes on moderate drinkers were small regardless of income or socioeconomic group. Analysis of uncertainty shows that the relative effectiveness of the four policies is fairly stable, although uncertainty in the absolute scale of effects exists. Volumetric taxation and minimum unit pricing consistently outperform increasing the current tax or adding an ad valorem tax in terms of reducing mortality among the heaviest drinkers and reducing alcohol-related health inequalities (e.g., in the routine/manual occupation group, volumetric taxation reduces deaths more than increasing the current tax in 26 out of 30 probabilistic runs, minimum unit pricing reduces deaths more than volumetric tax in 21 out of 30 runs, and minimum unit pricing reduces deaths more than increasing the current tax in 30 out of 30 runs). Study limitations include reducing model complexity by not considering a largely ineffective ban on below-tax alcohol sales, special duty rates covering only small shares of the market, and the impact of tax fraud or retailer non-compliance with minimum unit prices. Our model estimates that, compared to tax increases under the current system or introducing taxation based on product value, alcohol-content-based taxation or minimum unit pricing would lead to larger reductions in health inequalities across income groups. We also estimate that alcohol-content-based taxation and minimum unit pricing would have the largest impact on harmful drinking, with minimal effects on those drinking in moderation.

ObjectivesIn recent years, ‘deaths of despair’ due to drugs, alcohol and suicide have contributed to rising mid-life mortality in the USA. We examine whether despair-related deaths and mid-life mortality trends are also changing in peer countries, the UK and Canada.DesignDescriptive analysis of population mortality rates.SettingThe USA, UK (and constituent nations England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland) and Canada, 2001–2019.ParticipantsFull population aged 35–64 years.Outcome measuresWe compared all-cause and ‘despair’-related mortality trends at mid-life across countries using publicly available mortality data, stratified by three age groups (35–44, 45–54 and 55–64 years) and by sex. We examined trends in all-cause mortality and mortality by causes categorised as (1) suicides, (2) alcohol-specific deaths and (3) drug-related deaths. We employ several descriptive approaches to visually inspect age, period and cohort trends in these causes of death.ResultsThe USA and Scotland both saw large relative increases and high absolute levels of drug-related deaths. The rest of the UK and Canada saw relative increases but much lower absolute levels in comparison. Alcohol-specific deaths showed less consistent trends that did not track other ‘despair’ causes, with older groups in Scotland seeing steep declines over time. Suicide deaths trended slowly upward in most countries.ConclusionsIn the UK, Scotland has suffered increases in drug-related mortality comparable with the USA, while Canada and other UK constituent nations did not see dramatic increases. Alcohol-specific and suicide mortalities generally follow different patterns to drug-related deaths across countries and over time, questioning the utility of a cohesive ‘deaths of despair’ narrative.

Governments in several countries have introduced a minimum unit price (MUP) for alcohol. Evaluation studies suggest this has reduced alcohol-related harm, but MUPs must increase with inflation to remain effective. This paper estimates the impact of the impact of the Scottish Government's decision to increase its MUP from £0.50 to £0.65 in September 2024 and, alternative options where the MUP changes to between £0.40 and £0.80. It examines impacts on alcohol consumption, spending, and related health outcomes, how impacts vary across the population with regard to deprivation, and how drinkers move between lighter and heavier alcohol consumption groups. Policy appraisal using the Sheffield Tobacco and Alcohol Policy Model, a dynamic microsimulation model that combines data on alcohol purchasing and consumption for 10 beverage types and 800 subgroups comprising adults in the Scottish population with price elasticities and an epidemiological model. Deprivation is measured using quintiles of the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation. Drinker group is categorised as moderate (<14 units/week, 1 UK unit = 8 g ethanol), hazardous (>14 to ≤35/ ≤50 units/week for women/men), and harmful (>35/50 units/week for women/men). The policy appraisal estimates that, compared to retaining Scotland's MUP at £0.50, increasing the MUP to £0.65 leads to an estimated 12.0% decrease in alcohol consumption, 2.1% decrease in alcohol spending, 3,385 fewer deaths overall, and 2,578 fewer deaths wholly attributable to alcohol over 20 years. Estimated effects are largest in the quintile of the population living in the most deprived areas. Increasing the MUP to £0.65 is also estimated to reduce the proportion of drinkers consuming at harmful levels by 29.4% and the proportion consuming at hazardous levels by 8.0%. Key limitations of the study include relying on data on alcohol consumption and spending collected before the COVID-19 pandemic, synthesising consumption and spending data from separate datasets, and assuming no supply-side responses (e.g., price changes above the MUP threshold). Increasing the threshold of an established MUP can lead to additional reductions in alcohol consumption, related harm, and health inequalities. Benefits accrue particularly to the most deprived and heaviest drinkers.

ObjectivesTo quantify the potential impact of minimum unit pricing (MUP) for alcohol on alcohol consumption, spending and health in South Africa. We provide these estimates disaggregated by different drinker groups and wealth quintiles.DesignWe developed an epidemiological policy appraisal model to estimate the effects of MUP across sex, drinker groups (moderate, occasional binge, heavy) and wealth quintiles. Stakeholder interviews and workshops informed model development and ensured policy relevance.SettingSouth African drinking population aged 15+.ParticipantsThe population (aged 15+) of South Africa in 2018 stratified by drinking group and wealth quintiles, with a model time horizon of 20 years.Main outcome measuresChange in standard drinks (SDs) (12 g of ethanol) consumed, weekly spend on alcohol, annual number of cases and deaths for five alcohol-related health conditions (HIV, intentional injury, road injury, liver cirrhosis and breast cancer), reported by drinker groups and wealth quintile.ResultsWe estimate an MUP of R10 per SD would lead to an immediate reduction in consumption of 4.40% (−0.93 SD/week) and an increase in spend of 18.09%. The absolute reduction is greatest for heavy drinkers (−1.48 SD/week), followed by occasional binge drinkers (−0.41 SD/week) and moderate drinkers (−0.40 SD/week). Over 20 years, we estimate 20 585 fewer deaths and 9 00 332 cases averted across the five health-modelled harms.Poorer drinkers would see greater impacts from the policy (consumption: −7.75% in the poorest quintile, −3.19% in richest quintile). Among the heavy drinkers, 85% of the cases averted and 86% of the lives saved accrue to the bottom three wealth quintiles.ConclusionsWe estimate that MUP would reduce alcohol consumption in South Africa, improving health outcomes while raising retail and tax revenue. Consumption and harm reductions would be greater in poorer groups.

ObjectiveTo determine the impact of minimum unit pricing (MUP) on the primary outcome of alcohol-related hospitalisation, and secondary outcomes of length of stay, hospital mortality and alcohol-related liver disease in hospital.DesignDatabases MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, APA Psycinfo, CINAHL Plus and Cochrane Reviews were searched from 1 January 2011 to 11 November 2022. Inclusion criteria were studies evaluating the impact of minimum pricing policies, and we excluded non-minimum pricing policies or studies without alcohol-related hospital outcomes. The Effective Public Health Practice Project tool was used to assess risk of bias, and the Bradford Hill Criteria were used to infer causality for outcome measures.SettingMUP sets a legally required floor price per unit of alcohol and is estimated to reduce alcohol-attributable healthcare burden.ParticipantAll studies meeting inclusion criteria from any countryInterventionMinimum pricing policy of alcoholPrimary and secondary outcome measuresResults22 studies met inclusion criteria; 6 natural experiments and 16 modelling studies. Countries included Australia, Canada, England, Northern Ireland, Ireland, Scotland, South Africa and Wales. Modelling studies estimated that MUP could reduce alcohol-related admissions by 3%–10% annually and the majority of real-world studies demonstrated that acute alcohol-related admissions responded immediately and reduced by 2%–9%, and chronic alcohol-related admissions lagged by 2–3 years and reduced by 4%–9% annually. Minimum pricing could target the heaviest consumers from the most deprived groups who tend to be at greatest risk of alcohol harms, and in so doing has the potential to reduce health inequalities. Using the Bradford Hill Criteria, we inferred a ‘moderate-to-strong’ causal link that MUP could reduce alcohol-related hospitalisation.ConclusionsNatural studies were consistent with minimum pricing modelling studies and showed that this policy could reduce alcohol-related hospitalisation and health inequalities.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021274023.

The Alcohol Harm Paradox refers to observations that lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups consume less alcohol but experience more alcohol-related problems. However, SES is a complex concept and its observed relationship to social problems often depends on how it is measured and the demographic groups studied. Thus this study assessed socioeconomic patterning of alcohol consumption and related harm using multiple measures of SES and examined moderation of this patterning by gender and age. Data were used from the Alcohol Toolkit Study between March and September 2015 on 31,878 adults (16+) living in England. Participants completed the AUDIT which includes alcohol consumption, harm and dependence modules. SES was measured via qualifications, employment, home and car ownership, income and social-grade, plus a composite of these measures. The composite score was coded such that higher scores reflected greater social-disadvantage. We observed the Alcohol Harm Paradox for the composite SES measure, with a linear negative relationship between SES and AUDIT-Consumption scores (β = -0.036, p<0.001) and a positive relationship between lower SES and AUDIT-Harm (β = 0.022, p<0.001) and AUDIT-Dependence (β = 0.024, p<0.001) scores. Individual measures of SES displayed different, and non-linear, relationships with AUDIT modules. For example, social-grade and income had a u-shaped relationship with AUDIT-Consumption scores while education had an inverse u-shaped relationship. Almost all measures displayed an exponential relationship with AUDIT-Dependence and AUDIT-Harm scores. We identified moderating effects from age and gender, with AUDIT-Dependence scores increasing more steeply with lower SES in men and both AUDIT-Harm and AUDIT-Dependence scores increasing more steeply with lower SES in younger age groups. Different SES measures appear to influence whether the Alcohol Harm Paradox is observed as a linear trend across SES groups or a phenomenon associated particularly with the most disadvantaged. The paradox also appears more concentrated in men and younger age groups.

IntroductionThe night-time economy comprises various sectors, including hospitality, transportation and entertainment, which generate substantial revenues and contribute to employment opportunities. Furthermore, the night-time economy provides spaces for leisure activities, cultural expression and social interaction. On-trade alcohol premises (places where consumers can buy and consume alcohol such as bars, pubs, clubs and restaurants) are a significant component of this night-time economy, functioning as focal points for socialising, entertainment and cultural events. However, when on-trade alcohol premises stay open later at night, this can be associated with negative public health impacts including increased alcohol consumption, intoxication, assaults, injuries and burden on public services including ambulance call outs, hospitalisations and increased impacts on criminal justice services. The evidence on the societal impact of policies to ‘later’ trading hours for bars and clubs in the night-time economy is limited. This protocol details the design of an economic evaluation of policy to later trading hours for bars and clubs in the night-time economy alongside the ELEPHANT study (National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research, ref:129885).Methods and analysisThe research design is an economic evaluation alongside a natural experiment within the ELEPHANT study carried out in Glasgow and Aberdeen. The economic evaluation has been designed to identify, measure and value prospective resource impacts and outcomes to assess the costs and consequences of local policy changes regarding late night trading hours for bars and clubs. A number of economic evaluation frameworks will be employed. A cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is appropriate for assessing the effectiveness of complex interventions when the impacts of policy are measured in natural units. Therefore, a CEA will be conducted for the primary consequence, alcohol-related ambulance call-outs, using a health service sector perspective. Since this outcome is essentially a cost, the CEA will also be reported as a cost-analysis. A cost-consequence analysis will also be performed for the primary and secondary consequences including all ambulance call-outs and reported crimes to evaluate the full economic impacts of later trading hours for bars and clubs in the night-time economy. The analysis will be conducted from a wider societal perspective, including health sector, criminal justice system, business and third sector perspectives and will be in line with the recent National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance and recommendations.Ethics and disseminationThe economic evaluation of the ELEPHANT study will be conducted using secondary data. Thus, no ethical approval is required for this economic evaluation. However, ethical approval for the ELEPHANT study has been granted from the University of Stirling’s General Research Ethics Committee, and prior consent has also been obtained from the participants, if involved. The results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications in journals and national and international conferences.

Background Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 health care delivery underwent considerable changes. It is unclear how this may have affected the delivery of Brief Interventions (BIs) for smoking and alcohol. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol in primary care in England and whether certain priority groups (e.g., less advantaged socioeconomic positions, or a history of a mental health condition) were differentially affected. Methods We used nationally representative data from a monthly cross-sectional survey in England between 03/2014 and 06/2022. Monthly trends in the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol were examined using generalised additive models among adults who smoked in the past-year (weighted N  = 31,390) and those using alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels (AUDIT score 3 8, weighted N  = 22,386), respectively. Interactions were tested between social grade and the change in slope after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and results reported stratified by social grade. Further logistic regression models assessed whether changes in the of receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol, respectively, from 12/2016 to 01/2017 and 10/2020 to 06/2022 (or 03/2022 in the case of BIs for alcohol), depended on history of a mental health condition. Results The receipt of smoking BIs declined from an average prevalence of 31.8% (95%CI 29.4–35.0) pre-March 2020 to 24.4% (95%CI 23.5–25.4) post-March 2020. The best-fitting model found that after March 2020 there was a 12-month decline before stabilising by June 2022 in social grade ABC1 at a lower level (~ 20%) and rebounding among social grade C2DE (~ 27%). Receipt of BIs for alcohol was low (overall: 4.1%, 95%CI 3.9–4.4) and the prevalence was similar pre- and post-March 2020. Conclusions The receipt of BIs for smoking declined following March 2020 but rebounded among priority socioeconomic groups of people who smoked. BIs for alcohol among those who use alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels were low and there was no appreciable change over time. Maintaining higher BI delivery among socioeconomic and mental health priority groups of smokers and increasing and higher risk alcohol users is important to support reductions in smoking and alcohol related inequalities.