OBJECTIVE This study tested the initial and continued effects of cancer warning labels on drinkers' recall and knowledge that alcohol can cause cancer. METHOD A quasi-experiment was conducted to examine changes in the intervention versus comparison site for three outcomes unprompted and prompted recall of the cancer warning, and knowledge that alcohol can cause cancer. The intervention site applied cancer warning labels to alcohol containers in its liquor store for 1 month, and the two liquor stores in the comparison site did not apply cancer labels. In total, 2,049 unique cohort participants (1,056 male) were recruited at liquor stores in the intervention and comparison sites to participate in surveys 4 months before labels were applied and 2 and 6 months after the cancer label was halted because of alcohol industry interference. Generalized estimating equations tested differences in outcomes between sites over time adjusting for socio-demographics and other covariates. RESULTS Two months after the cancer label, unprompted (+24.2% vs. +0.6%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 32.7, 95% CI [5.4, 197.7]) and prompted (+35.7% vs. +4.1%; AOR = 6.2, 95% CI [3.6, 10.9]) recall increased to a greater extent in the intervention versus comparison site. There was a 10% greater increase in knowledge (+12.1% vs. +11.6%; AOR = 1.1, 95% CI [0.7, 1.5]) 2 months after the cancer label in the intervention versus comparison site. Similar results were found 6 months after the cancer label for all three outcomes. CONCLUSIONS In a real-world setting, cancer warning labels get noticed and increase knowledge that alcohol can cause cancer. Additional cancer label intervention studies are required that are not compromised by industry interference.OBJECTIVE Evidence-informed alcohol warning labels (AWLs) are a promising, well-targeted strategy to increase consumer awareness of health risks. We assessed consumers' baseline knowledge of alcohol-related cancer risk, standard drinks, and low-risk drinking guidelines as well as levels of support for AWLs. We further assessed associations with sociodemographic factors. METHOD Forming part of a larger study testing new evidence-informed AWLs in a northern Canadian territory compared with a neighboring territory, baseline surveys were completed among liquor store patrons systematically selected in both sites. Chi-square and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to assess outcomes. RESULTS In total, 836 liquor store patrons (47.8% female) completed baseline surveys across both sites. Overall, there was low knowledge of alcohol-related cancer risk (24.5%), limited ability to calculate a standard drink (29.5%), and low knowledge of daily (49.5%) and weekly (48.2%) low-risk drinking guideline limits. There was moderate support for AWLs with a health warning (55.9%) and standard drink information (51.4%), and lower support for low-risk drinking guideline labels (38.7%). No sociodemographic characteristics were associated with cancer knowledge. Identifying as female and having adequate health literacy were associated with support for all three AWLs; high alcohol use was associated with not supporting standard drink (adjusted odds ratio = 0.60, 95% CI [0.40, 0.88]) and low-risk drinking guideline (adjusted odds ratio = 0.57, 95% CI [0.38, 0.87]) labels. CONCLUSIONS Few consumers in this study had key alcohol-related health knowledge; however, there was moderate support for AWLs as a tool to raise awareness. Implementation of information-based interventions such as evidence-informed AWLs with health messages including alcohol-related cancer risk, standard drink information, and national drinking guidelines is warranted.OBJECTIVE There is limited evidence that alcohol warning labels (AWLs) affect population alcohol consumption. New evidence-informed AWLs were introduced in the sole government-run liquor store in Whitehorse, Yukon, that included a cancer warning (Ca), low-risk drinking guidelines (LRDGs) and standard drink (SD) messages. These temporarily replaced previous pregnancy warning labels. We test if the intervention was associated with reduced alcohol consumption. METHOD An interrupted time series study was designed to evaluate the effects of the AWLs on consumption for 28 months before and 14 months after starting the intervention. Neighboring regions of Yukon and Northwest Territories served as control sites. About 300,000 labels were applied to 98% of alcohol containers sold in Whitehorse during the intervention. Multilevel regression analyses of per capita alcohol sales data for people age 15 years and older were performed to examine consumption levels in the intervention and control sites before, during, and after the AWLs were introduced. Models were adjusted for demographic and economic characteristics over time and region. RESULTS Total per capita retail alcohol sales in Whitehorse decreased by 6.31% (t test p less then .001) during the intervention. Per capita sales of labeled products decreased by 6.59% (t test p less then .001), whereas sales of unlabeled products increased by 6.91% (t test p less then .05). There was a still larger reduction occurring after the intervention when pregnancy warning labels were reintroduced (-9.97% and -10.29%, t test p less then .001). CONCLUSIONS Applying new AWLs was associated with reduced population alcohol consumption. The results are consistent with an accumulating impact of the addition of varying and highly visible labels with impactful messages.OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to compare data on both alcohol use and alcohol-related consequences between intensive longitudinal data collection and the retrospective Timeline Followback (TLFB) interview. METHOD Heavy drinking college students (n = 96; 52% women) completed daily reports across a 28-day period to assess alcohol use and positive and negative consequences of drinking.  https://www.selleckchem.com/products/sbc-115076.html  They returned to the lab at the end of this period to complete a TLFB assessing behavior over those same 28 days. First, t tests were used to compare variables aggregated across the full 28 days at the between-person level. Next, hierarchical linear modeling was used to examine within-person differences between methods for each variable in weekly and daily increments. RESULTS Many alcohol use and consequence variables were significantly different when derived from self-reports during TLFB versus daily reports. In contrast to prior work, we found that higher estimates of drinking were reported retrospectively on the TLFB than on the daily reports.