Abstract
This commentary is a tale of two international surveys dealing with alcohol policy. One was conducted by an international public health agency, the World Health Organization, the other by a “social aspect organization,” the International Center for Alcohol Policies, which is funded by the alcohol industry. Although the two studies share a similar survey methodology and common policy aims, the findings and conclusions are very different. Prevalence estimates for a variety of alcohol policies were significantly lower in the ICAP survey, suggesting possible sampling bias or poor survey design. We found the WHO report appropriately cautious in the conclusions drawn, with no instances where the interpretation did not conform reasonably well to the data reported. In contrast, the ICAP survey was faulted in the areas of transparency of the data analyses, the accuracy of the statistical reporting and interpretation of the data. In particular, the ICAP report claims that public education on alcohol was identified by 70% of respondents in “emerging” market countries, when this item was endorsed by only 38% of the sample. If there is any lesson to be learned from this “tale of two surveys,” it is that users of the grey literature need to discriminate between frivolous survey research and more serious attempts to provide accurate and useful information.