Model-based appraisal of minimum unit pricing for alcohol in Northern Ireland

In 2009, the Sheffield Alcohol Research Group (SARG) at Sheffield University developed the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model version 2.0 (SAPM) to appraise the potential impact of alcohol policies, including different levels of MUP, for the population of England. In 2013, SARG were commissioned by the DHSSPS and the Department for Social Development to adapt the Sheffield Model to NI in order to appraise the potential impact of a range of alcohol pricing policies. The present report represents the results of this work. Estimates from the Northern Ireland (NI) adaptation of the Sheffield Alcohol Policy Model - version 3 - (SAPM3) suggest: 1. Minimum Unit Pricing (MUP) policies would be effective in reducing alcohol consumption, alcohol related harms (including alcohol-related deaths, hospitalisations, crimes and workplace absences) and the costs associated with those harms. 2. A ban on below-cost selling (implemented as a ban on selling alcohol for below the cost of duty plus the VAT payable on that duty) would have a negligible impact on alcohol consumption or related harms. 3. A ban on price-based promotions in the off-trade, either alone or in tandem with an MUP policy would be effective in reducing alcohol consumption, related harms and associated costs. 4. MUP and promotion ban policies would only have a small impact on moderate drinkers at all levels of income. Somewhat larger impacts would be experienced by increasing risk drinkers, with the most substantial effects being experienced by high risk drinkers. 5. MUP and promotion ban policies would have larger impacts on those in poverty, particularly high risk drinkers, than those not in poverty. However, those in poverty also experience larger relative gains in health and are estimated to marginally reduce their spending due to their reduced drinking under the majority of policies åÊ

Self-harm, suicide and risk: helping people who self-harm. Final report of a working group.

The focus of this report is to enquire into and report on why people harm and kill themselves and to consider the role (including the limits of the role) that psychiatrists and other mental healthcare professionals play in their care and treatment. The experiences and views of people who harm themselves as well as those of their carers, health professionals and third-sector workers are central to this enquiry. As there is much policy and guidance on self-harm and suicide prevention, the report does not attempt to retrace this same ground but rather examines the evidence of practice on the ground, including the implementation of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines on self-harm (National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, 2004). This report is the second in the Royal College of Psychiatristsââ,¬â"¢ programme of work on the broad issue of risk. The College report Rethinking Risk to Others was published in July 2008 (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2008a) and a new Working Group was set up under the chairmanship of John, Lord Alderdice, to examine risk, self-harm and suicide. This clinical issue is an integral part of the role of the psychiatrist in ensuring the good care and treatment of patients. Our central theme is that the needs, care, well-being and individual human dilemma of the person who harms themselves should be at the heart of what we as clinicians do. Public health policy has a vital role to play and psychiatrists must be involved and not leave these crucial political and managerial decisions to those who are not professionally equipped to appreciate the complexities of self-harm and suicide. But we must never forget that we are not just dealing with social phenomena but with people who are often at, and beyond the limit of what they can emotionally endure. Their aggressive acts towards themselves can be difficult to understand and frustrating to address, but this is precisely why psychiatrists need to be involved to bring clarity to the differing causes for the self-destructive ways in which people act and to assist in managing the problems for the people concerned, including family, friends and professional carers, who sometimes find themselves at the end of their tether in the face of such puzzling and destructive behaviour.