4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Alcohol policies and alcohol-attributable cancer mortality in US States

期刊

CHEMICO-BIOLOGICAL INTERACTIONS
卷 315, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbi.2019.108885

关键词

-

资金

  1. [RO1AA018377]
  2. [R01AA023376]
  3. [R01AA026268]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Although more restrictive alcohol control policies (e.g., higher alcohol taxes) are related to lower levels of alcohol consumption, little is known about the relationship between alcohol policies and rates of alcohol-attributable cancer. Methods: State alcohol policy restrictiveness, as measured by a validated policy scale, were related to state rates of six alcohol attributable cancers in the U.S. from 2006 to 2010 in a lagged, cross-sectional linear regression that controlled for a variety of state-level factors. Cancer mortality rates were from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's Alcohol-Related Disease Impact application, which uses population-attributable fraction methodology to calculate mortality from cancers of the esophagus, larynx, liver, oropharynx, prostate (male only) and breast (female only). Results: More restrictive state alcohol policies were associated with lower cancer mortality rates for the six cancer types overall (beta [beta] -0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.59, -0.07), and among men (beta -0.45; 95% CI -0.81, -0.10) and women (beta -0.21; 95% CI -0.40, -0.02). A 10% increase in the restrictiveness of alcohol policies (based on the mean APS among states) was associated with an 8.5% decrease in rates of combined alcohol-attributable cancers. In all analyses stratified by cancer subtype and sex, the associations were in the hypothesized direction (i.e., more restrictive state policy environments were associated with lower rates of alcohol-attributable cancers), with the exception of laryngeal cancer among women. Conclusion: Strengthening alcohol policies is a promising prevention strategy for alcohol-related cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据