Measuring How Public Health Stakeholders Seek to Influence Alcohol Premises Licensing in England and Scotland: The Public Health Engagement In Alcohol Licensing (PHIAL) Measure.

Objective: In the United Kingdom, some public health teams (PHTs) routinely engage with local alcohol premises licensing systems, through which licenses to sell alcohol are granted. We aimed to categorize PHT efforts and to develop and apply a measure of their efforts over time.
Method: Preliminary categories of PHT activity were developed based on prior literature and were used to guide data collection with PHTs in 39 local government areas (27 in England; 12 in Scotland), sampled purposively. Relevant activity from April 2012 to March 2019 was identified through structured interviews ( N = 62), documentation analysis, and follow-up checks, and a grading system was developed. The measure was refined based on expert consultation and used to grade relevant PHT activity for the 39 areas in 6-month periods.
Results: The Public Health engagement In Alcohol Licensing (PHIAL) Measure includes 19 activities in six categories: (a) staffing; (b) reviewing license applications; (c) responding to license applications; (d) data usage; (e) influencing licensing stakeholders or policy; and (f) public involvement. PHIAL scores for each area demonstrate fluctuation in type and level of activity between and within areas over time. Participating PHTs in Scotland were more active on average, particularly on senior leadership, policy development, and working with the public. In England, activity to influence license applications before decision was more common, and a clear increase in activity is apparent from 2014 onward.
Conclusions: The novel PHIAL Measure successfully assessed diverse and fluctuating PHT engagement in alcohol licensing systems over time and will have practice, policy, and research applications.
Competing Interests: Colin Angus has received funding related to commissioned research from Systembolaget and Alko, the Swedish and Finnish government-owned alcohol retail monopolies. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.