“…Based on interviews carried out in 2011 and 2012, Shiffman identified contested framing and minimum expansion into developing countries as key barriers to the network's effectiveness [66]. While these have been disputed based on its clear commitments to evidence‐based policy and recent global expansion [67], it aligns with some interviewees (P4, P6, P12, P18, P20), who pointed out some constraints in global alliances. One, for example, suggested that advocates need a bigger role in networks:‘We really could be doing much better in terms of how we're internationally connected.…”
IntroductionWhile effective policies exist to reduce alcohol‐related harm, political will to enact them is low in many jurisdictions. We aimed to identify key barriers and strategies for strengthening political priority for alcohol policy reform.MethodsA framework synthesis was conducted, incorporating relevant theory, key informant interviews (n = 37) and a scoping review. Thematic analysis informed the development of a framework for understanding and influencing political priority for alcohol policy.ResultsTwelve barriers and 14 strategies were identified at multiple levels (global, national and local). Major barriers included neoliberal or free trade ideology, the globalised alcohol industry, limited advocate capacity and the normalisation of alcohol harms. Strategies fell into two categories: sector‐specific and system change initiatives. Sector‐specific strategies primarily focus on influencing policymakers and mobilising civil society. Examples include developing a clear, unified solution, coalition building and effective framing. System change initiatives target structural change to reduce the power imbalance between industry and civil society, such as restricting industry involvement in policymaking and securing sustainable funding for advocacy. A key example is establishing an international treaty, similar to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, to support domestic policymaking.Discussion and ConclusionsOur findings provide a framework for understanding and advancing political priority for alcohol policy. The framework highlights that progress can be achieved at various levels and through diverse groups of actors. The importance of upstream drivers of policymaking was a key finding, presenting challenges for time‐poor advocates, but offering potential facilitation through effective global leadership.
“…Based on interviews carried out in 2011 and 2012, Shiffman identified contested framing and minimum expansion into developing countries as key barriers to the network's effectiveness [66]. While these have been disputed based on its clear commitments to evidence‐based policy and recent global expansion [67], it aligns with some interviewees (P4, P6, P12, P18, P20), who pointed out some constraints in global alliances. One, for example, suggested that advocates need a bigger role in networks:‘We really could be doing much better in terms of how we're internationally connected.…”
IntroductionWhile effective policies exist to reduce alcohol‐related harm, political will to enact them is low in many jurisdictions. We aimed to identify key barriers and strategies for strengthening political priority for alcohol policy reform.MethodsA framework synthesis was conducted, incorporating relevant theory, key informant interviews (n = 37) and a scoping review. Thematic analysis informed the development of a framework for understanding and influencing political priority for alcohol policy.ResultsTwelve barriers and 14 strategies were identified at multiple levels (global, national and local). Major barriers included neoliberal or free trade ideology, the globalised alcohol industry, limited advocate capacity and the normalisation of alcohol harms. Strategies fell into two categories: sector‐specific and system change initiatives. Sector‐specific strategies primarily focus on influencing policymakers and mobilising civil society. Examples include developing a clear, unified solution, coalition building and effective framing. System change initiatives target structural change to reduce the power imbalance between industry and civil society, such as restricting industry involvement in policymaking and securing sustainable funding for advocacy. A key example is establishing an international treaty, similar to the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, to support domestic policymaking.Discussion and ConclusionsOur findings provide a framework for understanding and advancing political priority for alcohol policy. The framework highlights that progress can be achieved at various levels and through diverse groups of actors. The importance of upstream drivers of policymaking was a key finding, presenting challenges for time‐poor advocates, but offering potential facilitation through effective global leadership.
“…10 Just as there are no funders coming forward to support the alcohol portfolio in WHO, there are few funders (government or private) willing to support civil society efforts to address alcohol harm, either for community programs or for policy advocacy at the national or global levels. 11 As illustrated by the figures above, compared to other public health challenges alcohol is severely under-funded. Funding commensurate with the health burden is needed in order to fulfil the ambition of accelerating action.…”
Section: Lack Of Philanthropic and Earmarked Supportmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Just as there are no funders coming forward to support the alcohol portfolio in WHO, there are few funders (government or private) willing to support civil society efforts to address alcohol harm, either for community programs or for policy advocacy at the national or global levels. 11 …”
Section: Lack Of Philanthropic and Earmarked Supportmentioning
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
