The impact of changes to alcohol policy on patron drinking behaviours in Queensland

Abstract

Introduction. On 1 July 2016, stage 1 of the Tackling Alcohol-Fuelled Violence (TAFV) policy was introduced in Queensland, Australia and included restricted alcohol service to 03:00 in dedicated entertainment precincts (safe night precincts or SNPs). During stage 2 (from 1 February 2017), the number of extended trading permits (i.e. trading until 05:00) per venue were reduced; and during stage 3 (from 1 July 2017), networked identification scanners were mandated for late-night venues. We aim to examine whether patron drinking behaviours in two key SNPs changed significantly following stages 2 and 3. Methods. The study design was repeated cross-sectional, with three data collection (policy) stages. Patrons street surveys were conducted in Fortitude Valley (n = 2066) and Cairns (n = 1021) SNPs between July 2016 and November 2018. Linear or negative binomial regressions were conducted to examine changes in three key outcomes: blood alcohol concentration (BAC) reading, proportion of pre-drinkers and number of pre-drinks. Results. We found no significant difference in BAC reading, proportion of pre-drinkers or number of pre-drinks at stages 2 and 3 of the policy compared to baseline in Fortitude Valley. In Cairns, we found significant reductions in patron BAC at stage 3 of the policy, and female BAC at stages 2 and 3 compared to baseline; while the proportion of females pre-drinking significantly reduced by half in stage 2. Discussion and Conclusions. Despite evidence of some reductions in alcohol consumption, high levels of intoxication remain, suggesting harm reduction may be more difficult to achieve in these drinkers.

Addressing alcohol-related harms in the local night-time economy: a qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective

“…Since the Manchester study, international evidence that NTE regulation can reduce harm has increased, most recently with an Australian study. 20–22 That study found that NTE regulation (that includes reduced trading hours) reduced alcohol harms without reducing the number of patrons, scale or diversity of NTEs and occurred while the number of alcohol licensed venues increased. 17 18 62 …”

“…Manchester study, international evidence that NTE regulation can reduce harm has increased, most recently with an Australian study. [20][21][22] That study found that NTE regulation (that includes reduced trading hours) reduced alcohol harms without reducing the number of patrons, scale or diversity of NTEs and occurred while the number of alcohol licensed venues increased. 17 18 62 This disconnect between stakeholder claims and research evidence raises an important point about the value of examining hypotheses derived from stakeholder opinions, when those opinions may lack supporting evidence or even be contradicted by evidence.…”

“…The Queensland Alcohol-related violence and Night-Time Economy (QUANTEM) project provides an example of how such a study could be conducted, using multiple data sources to measure impacts on alcohol-related health and social harms and local economies. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Furthermore, the ExILEnS study and research stemming from the NIHR School for Public Health Research alcohol programme demonstrate how impacts of local alcohol policies have been evaluated in UK contexts. 13 15 16 25 A well-theorised, robust impact evaluation of the LNL is overdue.…”

“…For example, much of the evidence came from a narrow range of countries (particularly Australia and the USA) raising concerns about wider generalisablity and few studies examined effects of changing temporal alcohol availability (hours of sale, including opening and closing hours). A number of studies from the UK and elsewhere have evaluated local-level regulation of alcohol availability and NTEs 1 13–24. In England, changes to alcohol licensing systems that included new discretionary powers for local authorities (LAs) have been the focus of recent and ongoing research 13–16 25…”

Drink for drink: measurement of preloading motivations for field and survey research with correlates of alcohol related harms

“…Approximately seventy to ninety percent of individuals preload with alcohol before a party, event or night-out (Devilly et al, 2019b;Hughes et al, 2008;Merrill et al, 2016). Preloading is often contextualized as a behaviour practiced by young adults (i.e., 18 -24 years;MacLean & Callinan, 2013;Wells et al, 2015), despite a smaller proportion of adults (i.e., 25 -60 years) also reporting engagement in the practice (de Andrade et al, 2021;Devilly et al, 2017). For both individuals young and old, their decisions to preload are guided by various motivations to consume alcohol (LaBrie et al, 2012;Foster & Ferguson, 2014;Devilly et al, 2019a).…”