Unpacking the differing understandings of "alcohol industry" in public health research.

Alcohol Alcohol industry Alcohol policy Commercial determinants Unhealthy commodity industries

Journal

The International journal on drug policy
ISSN: 1873-4758
Titre abrégé: Int J Drug Policy
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9014759

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jul 2023
Historique:
received: 06 02 2023
revised: 25 04 2023
accepted: 27 04 2023
medline: 26 6 2023
pubmed: 16 5 2023
entrez: 15 5 2023
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Use of the term 'alcohol industry' plays an important role in discussions of alcohol and public health. In this paper, we examine how the term is currently used and explore the merits of alternative conceptualisations. We start by examining current ways of referring to 'alcohol industry' in public health and then explore the potential for organisational theory, political science, and sociology to provide alcohol research with more inclusive and nuanced conceptualizations. We identify, and critique, three conceptualisations based on purely economic understandings of industry: literal, market, and supply-chain understandings. We then examine three alternative conceptualizations based on systemic understandings of industry: organizational, social-network, and common-interest understandings. In examining these alternatives, we also identify the extent to which they open up new ways of approaching the levels at which industry influence is understood to operate in alcohol and public health research and policy. Each of the six understandings of 'industry' can play a role in research but their utility depends on the question being asked and the breadth and depth of the analysis being undertaken. However, for those intending to engage with a broader disciplinary base, approaches grounded in the systemic understandings of 'industry' are better positioned to study the complex nexus of relationships that contribute to alcohol industry influence.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Use of the term 'alcohol industry' plays an important role in discussions of alcohol and public health. In this paper, we examine how the term is currently used and explore the merits of alternative conceptualisations.
METHODS METHODS
We start by examining current ways of referring to 'alcohol industry' in public health and then explore the potential for organisational theory, political science, and sociology to provide alcohol research with more inclusive and nuanced conceptualizations.
RESULTS RESULTS
We identify, and critique, three conceptualisations based on purely economic understandings of industry: literal, market, and supply-chain understandings. We then examine three alternative conceptualizations based on systemic understandings of industry: organizational, social-network, and common-interest understandings. In examining these alternatives, we also identify the extent to which they open up new ways of approaching the levels at which industry influence is understood to operate in alcohol and public health research and policy.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Each of the six understandings of 'industry' can play a role in research but their utility depends on the question being asked and the breadth and depth of the analysis being undertaken. However, for those intending to engage with a broader disciplinary base, approaches grounded in the systemic understandings of 'industry' are better positioned to study the complex nexus of relationships that contribute to alcohol industry influence.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37187085
pii: S0955-3959(23)00104-4
doi: 10.1016/j.drugpo.2023.104056
pii:
doi:

Substances chimiques

Ethanol 3K9958V90M

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

104056

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Declarations of Interest ES has not received funds from tobacco, alcohol, or gambling industry sources and has no conflicts of interests to declare. PA has never accepted funding directly from gambling, alcohol or other unhealthy commodity industries. He participated in research projects in the 1990s funded by two hypothecated funding sources; money levied from alcohol consumption and administered by New Zealand's Alcohol Advisory Council, an Autonomous Crown Entity (established by an Act of Parliament in 1976, and disbanded in 2012), and the other from money levied from gambling consumption and administered by the NZ Ministry of Health. Since 2004 he has not accepted funding from hypothecated sources. KK has not received funds from tobacco, alcohol, or gambling industry sources and has no conflicts of interests to declare. From 1999-2011, he had research projects funded through a levy on alcohol administered by New Zealand's Alcohol Advisory Council. He held a Lottery Health Research Grant (2009-2010) from the New Zealand Lotteries Commission, an Autonomous Crown entity. His contribution to this research was supported via a Senior Research Fellowship from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, and a University of Newcastle Senior Brawn Research Fellowship.

Auteurs

Edwin Sayes (E)

School of Population Health, and Centre for Addiction Research, University of Auckland, Private 92019, Auckland 1142, Aotearoa New Zealand.

Peter J Adams (PJ)

School of Population Health, and Centre for Addiction Research, University of Auckland, Private 92019, Auckland 1142, Aotearoa New Zealand. Electronic address: p.adams@auckland.ac.nz.

Kypros Kypri (K)

Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, Aotearoa New Zealand.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH