↓ Skip to main content

Investigating local policy drivers for alcohol harm prevention: a comparative case study of two local authorities in England

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
41 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Investigating local policy drivers for alcohol harm prevention: a comparative case study of two local authorities in England
Published in
BMC Public Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4841-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

John D. Mooney, John Holmes, Lucy Gavens, Frank de Vocht, Matt Hickman, Karen Lock, Alan Brennan

Abstract

The considerable challenges associated with implementing national level alcohol policies have encouraged a renewed focus on the prospects for local-level policies in the UK and elsewhere. We adopted a case study approach to identify the major characteristics and drivers of differences in the patterns of local alcohol policies and services in two contrasting local authority (LA) areas in England. Data were collected via thirteen semi-structured interviews with key informants (including public health, licensing and trading standards) and documentary analysis, including harm reduction strategies and statements of licensing policy. A two-stage thematic analysis was used to categorize all relevant statements into seven over-arching themes, by which document sources were then also analysed. Three of the seven over-arching themes (drink environment, treatment services and barriers and facilitators), provided for the most explanatory detail informing the contrasting policy responses of the two LAs: LA1 pursued a risk-informed strategy via a specialist police team working proactively with problem premises and screening systematically to identify riskier drinking. LA2 adopted a more upstream regulatory approach around restrictions on availability with less emphasis on co-ordinated screening and treatment measures. New powers over alcohol policy for LAs in England can produce markedly different policies for reducing alcohol-related harm. These difference are rooted in economic, opportunistic, organisational and personnel factors particular to the LAs themselves and may lead to closely tailored solutions in some policy areas and poorer co-ordination and attention in others.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 18%
Student > Master 7 12%
Other 4 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 7%
Lecturer 3 5%
Other 12 20%
Unknown 19 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Social Sciences 10 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 10%
Psychology 3 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 18 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,459,294
of 24,010,679 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,591
of 15,812 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,470
of 330,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#28
of 175 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,010,679 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 15,812 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,496 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 175 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.