This multi-source study analyses the rapid growth of Dry January and examines how participation influences alcohol-related attitudes, self-efficacy, and consumption patterns. Drawing on registration data, population surveys, participant follow-ups, and a comparison group, the findings show that registered participants experienced greater reductions in high-risk alcohol use and stronger gains in alcohol-refusal self-efficacy than those attempting change without registering to take part in Dry January.
The study identifies social diffusion, public commitment, and structured digital support as key mechanisms driving both the expansion of Dry January and its sustained behavioural effects.

Author

Richard O. de Visser , Emily Robinson , Tom Smith , Gemma Cass , Matthew Walmsley

Citation

Richard O. de Visser, Emily Robinson, Tom Smith, Gemma Cass, Matthew Walmsley, The growth of ‘Dry January’: promoting participation and the benefits of participation, European Journal of Public Health, Volume 27, Issue 5, October 2017, Pages 929–931, https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckx124

Source
European Journal of Public Health
Release date
22/09/2017

The growth of ‘Dry January’: promoting participation and the benefits of participation

Journal article 

Key points

  • Temporary alcohol-free periods can provide physiological benefits, and positive changes in attitudes and alcohol consumption.
  • Data from four sources suggest that ‘social contagion’ and ‘diffusion’ have aided the growth of the awareness, appeal and practice of the alcohol-free challenge ‘Dry January’.
  • Broadcast and social media can be used to promote alcohol-free challenges, to provide support for participants and to facilitate changes in social norms via diffusion.

Background

Going alcohol-free temporarily can provide physiological benefits, and positive changes in attitudes and reductions in alcohol consumption. It may also be a precursor to longer-term behaviour change: after a person has made a commitment to behaviour change, it is more likely that they will make larger changes in keeping with the initial commitment.

Organisations in many countries run challenges for people to go alcohol-free for periods of time, such as for a month.

  • These include ‘Dry July’ in Australia (www.dryjuly.com) and New Zealand (www.dryjuly.co.nz).
  • Other organisations such as ‘Hello Sunday Morning’ (www.hellosundaymorning.org) encourage people to take a break from alcohol or to reduce their intake, but not in the context of a monthly alcohol-free challenge.

The UK NGO Alcohol Concern first ran ‘Dry January’ in 2013 as part of its efforts to change the alcohol consumption culture through ‘social contagion’ whereby healthy changes in beliefs and behaviour among a sub-group of people spread through the population. Similarly, ‘diffusion’ refers to how new ideas or practices spread between members of a social system through channels of communication including appropriate media.

In 2015, Public Health England (PHE) worked with Alcohol Concern to enhance the diffusion of Dry January. The campaign had a budget of £500,000 for radio, press, and social media advertising; a calendar of Facebook events; and partnership with employers. Email and SMS/text message support was provided for registrants. This campaign produced 1362 pieces of media coverage estimated by PHE to be worth over £8 million. There were also 52,949 mentions of Dry January on social media between the campaign launch and the end of January. PHE’s aims were to: increase participation in Dry January; support participants with encouraging messages; and maintain the beneficial impact of Dry January for participants.

Study Aim and Methods

The first aim of this study was to explore the ‘diffusion’ of Dry January as a concept and practice.

The second aim was to ascertain the benefits of Dry January registration in comparison to trying to restrict alcohol intake without taking part.

This article presents evidence from four sources:

  1. The first source was the number of registrations for Dry January between 2013 and 2016.
  2. The second source of information was interviews with adult alcohol consumers in the general population conducted in February 2015 (N = 825) and February 2016 (N = 874).
  3. The third source was surveys of registrants for Dry January 2015 using methods applied in 2014.
    • People who registered on the Dry January website before 6 January 2015 were invited to complete the baseline survey: 13,277 did so (28% of registrants). A one-month follow-up survey was completed by 2499 participants in February 2015. The 6-month follow-up was completed by 1591 participants in August 2015. The surveys assessed alcohol consumption with the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Alcohol Use Refusal Self Efficacy was assessed in three domains: social settings when others are consuming alcohol, for emotion regulation, and opportunistic alcohol use.
  4. The fourth source was surveys conducted at baseline (N = 1251), 1-month follow-up (N= 600) and 6-month follow-up (N = 250) among a ‘control group’ of alcohol consumers who wanted to change their alcohol consumption but had not registered for Dry January.

Findings

The number of registrants increased from just over 4000 in 2013 to nearly 60,000 in 2016. In the absence of other significant changes to publicity, it appears that PHE involvement contributed to trebling the number of sign-ups between 2014 and 2015. 

Many people take part in Dry January without officially registering: the proportions that reported trying to go alcohol-free during January without registering for Dry January were 7% in 2015 and 11% in 2016.

Extrapolating from these representative samples to the broader population, it can be estimated that ca. 2 million adults in England tried to go alcohol-free in January. Awareness of Dry January was high (64% of all alcohol consumers in 2015 and 78% in 2016): many people who reduced their alcohol intake were aware of Dry January.

The third source of information was surveys of Dry January registrants:

  • At 1-month follow-up, 62% reported successfully completing the challenge.
    • Nearly all (96%) reported signing up to receive supportive/encouraging emails from Dry January, 69% of whom reported reading every message sent to them, and 71% of whom reported that the messages helped them to avoid alcohol use.
  • Just over half (57%) of Dry January registrants opted to receive supportive/encouraging SMS/text messages, 78% of whom reported that the messages helped them to avoid alcohol use.
  • Two-fifths (42%) of respondents reported using social media support such as messages on Facebook, and 73% reported that such support helped them to avoid alcohol use.
  • Among people who completed the 1-month follow-up, 92% reported that it was likely that they would participate in Dry January in the future.

The fourth source of information – comparisons between the control group and Dry January registrants adjusted for baseline differences between the two groups – revealed that:

  • Dry January participants had significantly lower AUDIT scores at 6-month follow-up,
  • Dry January participants had moderate increases in Alcohol Use Refusal Self Efficacy at 6-month follow-up but the control group who sought to change their behaviour but did not register for Dry January did not have any improvements in Alcohol Use Refusal Self Efficacy.
    • Dry January participants had significantly larger improvements in social Alcohol Use Refusal Self Efficacy, emotional Alcohol Use Refusal Self Efficacy, and opportunistic Alcohol Use Refusal Self Efficacy.

Meaning and Conclusions

The data reported earlier indicate a large rise in registrations for Dry January: a 15-fold increase in the three years since the first Dry January. The increase is likely to have been affected by funding for promotion and advertising in 2015, as the growth rate was lower between 2015 and 2016.

The data also highlighted that over one million people undertake Dry January ‘unofficially’. There may be value in encouraging this latter group to register for Dry January given registrants’ positive responses to the advice and support offered. Furthermore, people who make made a public commitment to Dry January may also be more likely to persist with their efforts.

The results suggest that ‘social contagion’ and ‘diffusion’ have been important elements in the growth of Dry January. There is now a ‘critical mass’ of people taking part each year, and Dry January is familiar and appealing to manypeople.

Such processes may also explain the spread of other socially mediated behaviour change campaigns (e.g. hellosundaymorning.org, nhs.uk/smokefree/stoptober, meatfreemondays.com).

The material presented in this study suggests that there was value in using broadcast and social media to promote the ‘Dry January’ behaviour change campaign, to provide appropriate support for participants, and to facilitate changes in social norms via diffusion.

The findings may also be relevant to behaviour change campaigns in other health-related domains.

Abstract

This scientific article explores contributors to the rapid growth of the annual UK alcohol-free challenge ‘Dry January’ and the benefits of registration.

Evidence from four sources is presented:

  1. registrations via the Dry January website,
  2. surveys of population-representative samples of alcohol consumers,
  3. surveys of Dry January registrants, and
  4. surveys of a control group of alcohol consumers who wanted to change to their alcohol consumption behaviour but had not registered for Dry January.

The data revealed that Dry January registrations increased 15-fold in 4 years.

Participants reported that encouragement received from Dry January helped them to avoid alcohol use.

Comparisons of Dry January registrants to the control group suggest that registering for Dry January reduced high-risk alcohol use and enhanced the capacity to refuse alcohol.

The four sources of data suggest that ‘social contagion’ and ‘diffusion’ have aided the growth of the awareness, appeal and practice of Dry January.

Source Website: Oxford Academic