Dry January: benefits of temporary alcohol abstinence

Methodology

The researchers conducted a systematic literature search across multiple databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, SocINDEX, and Global Health from inception to 31 August 2023, using the search phrase ‘Dry January’ in titles or abstracts. Following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist, the team screened 90 publications and ultimately reviewed 16 studies that met inclusion criteria. The included research encompassed various methodological approaches: observational studies, qualitative investigations, experimental designs, and one randomised controlled trial, with the majority (10 of 16) conducted in the United Kingdom (Strowger et al., 2025).

Participant characteristics and growth patterns

The review revealed distinct demographic patterns among Dry January participants. Compared to general population drinkers, participants tended to report higher incomes, university education, female gender, younger age, and notably, heavier baseline drinking patterns (de Visser & Piper, 2020).

Participation grew dramatically from 4,000 registered participants in 2013 to over 175,000 in 2023, with survey data suggesting that approximately 8.5 million UK adults planned to abstain in January 2024.

Importantly, between 7% and 11% of adult drinkers attempted January abstinence without formal registration, though awareness of the campaign remained high (64%–78%) among this group (de Visser et al., 2017).

Health outcomes and benefits

The evidence demonstrated substantial short-term and mid-term benefits for successful abstainers. Participants reported improved psychological well-being, including enhanced mental health, greater drink refusal self-efficacy, increased sense of control, and elevated happiness levels (de Visser & Nicholls, 2020; Yeomans, 2019).

Physical benefits included weight loss, improved sleep quality, increased energy, and better concentration.

Crucially, biological markers showed significant improvements: successful abstainers exhibited reduced insulin resistance, lower blood pressure, decreased liver fat, improved liver function tests (particularly gamma-glutamyl transferase levels), and reduced blood glucose and cholesterol (Mehta et al., 2018; Munsterman et al., 2018; Coghlan, 2014).

Predictors of success and harm reduction effects

Several factors predicted successful completion of the one-month abstinence challenge. Lower baseline alcohol consumption, reduced frequency of drunkenness, lower AUDIT scores (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test) male gender, higher emotional drink refusal self-efficacy, and consistent engagement with Dry January support materials all correlated with abstinence success (de Visser & Nicholls, 2020; de Visser et al., 2016).

Notably, participants who did not achieve complete abstinence still experienced meaningful harm reduction benefits, including improved mental well-being, increased self-efficacy, decreased drinking frequency, and reduced alcohol consumption at follow-up assessments (de Visser & Piper, 2020).

Population-level impact and limitations

Despite individual-level benefits, the review found no evidence of population-level drinking reductions associated with increased Dry January participation, at least in the period between 2015 and 2018 (Case et al., 2021). A simulation study suggested that participation rates would need to reach 20% of eligible drinkers to produce minor population-level effects, with 100% participation required for moderate impact (Buckley et al., 2022). The reviewed literature identified several limitations: most studies employed observational designs susceptible to self-selection bias, follow-up periods rarely extended beyond six months, and nearly all research derived from UK populations, limiting generalisability to other cultural contexts.

Discussion and future directions

The authors emphasised several critical priorities for future research and campaign development:

• first, rigorous investigation of rebound effects – instances where participants increased drinking post-January – remains essential, particularly among those who failed to maintain abstinence (de Visser et al., 2016);

• second, comparing traditional abstinence messaging with harm reduction approaches (such as ‘Damp January’, which encourages reduction rather than complete abstinence) could broaden campaign appeal and effectiveness;

• third, experimental designs using randomised controlled trials or analog studies would provide stronger causal evidence for Dry January’s effects (Strowger et al., 2025).

Implications for public health policy

To maximise public health impact, the campaign must prioritise increasing formal registration rates, as registration strongly predicts successful abstinence and resource engagement. Targeted outreach to under-represented groups – including men, older adults, and individuals with lower socioeconomic status – requires culturally adapted messaging and resources. The strategic use of social media influencers shows promise for expanding reach, particularly when influencers represent diverse backgrounds and provide personalised registration links (Strowger et al., 2025). Additionally, investigating mechanisms of change, including self-efficacy, social support, and reward-related attentional capture, could inform more effective interventions (Albertella et al., 2021).

Interim conclusions

The comprehensive scoping review by Strowger and colleagues (2025) provides robust evidence that Dry January demonstrates significant promise for reducing individual alcohol consumption and improving psychological, physical, and biological health outcomes. The campaign exhibits high acceptability, with 92% of participants expressing willingness to participate again (de Visser et al., 2017). However, achieving population-level benefits requires substantial increases in participation rates and formal registration. Future research should employ experimental methodologies, investigate harm reduction framing, examine mechanisms of behavioural change, and extend beyond UK populations to establish the campaign’s effectiveness in diverse cultural contexts. As temporary abstinence challenges continue to gain global traction, rigorous evaluation will ensure evidence-based refinement and optimal public health impact.

Dario Dongo

Photo by Lisa from Pexels

References

• Albertella, L., Hooven, J. V., Bovens, R., Azevedo, T. M., Roosloot, T., Pluut, P., Schellekens, A. F. A., & Wiers, R. W. (2021). Reward-related attentional capture predicts non-abstinence during a one-month abstinence challenge. Addictive Behaviors, 114, 106745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2020.106745

• Buckley, C., Field, M., Vu, T., Brennan, A., & Gillespie, D. (2022). An integrated dual process simulation model of alcohol use behaviours in individuals, with application to US population-level consumption, 1984–2012. Addictive Behaviors, 124, 107094. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2021.107094

• Case, P., Angus, C., De Vocht, F., & Kaner, E. (2021). Has the increased participation in the national campaign ‘Dry January’ been associated with cutting down alcohol consumption in England? Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 227, 108938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2021.108938

• Coghlan, A. (2014). Here’s to a dry January. New Scientist, 221(2953), 6–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0262-4079(14)60012-9

• de Visser, R. O., & Nicholls, J. (2020). Temporary abstinence during Dry January: Predictors of success; impact on well-being and self-efficacy. Psychology & Health, 35(11), 1293–1305. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2020.1743840

• de Visser, R. O., & Piper, R. (2020). Short- and longer-term benefits of temporary alcohol abstinence during ‘Dry January’ are not also observed among adult drinkers in the general population: Prospective cohort study. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 55(4), 433–438. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agaa025

• de Visser, R. O., Robinson, E., & Bond, R. (2016). Voluntary temporary abstinence from alcohol during ‘Dry January’ and subsequent alcohol use. Health Psychology, 35(3), 281–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000297

• de Visser, R. O., Robinson, E., Smith, T., Cass, G., & Walmsley, M. (2017). The growth of ‘Dry January’: Promoting participation and the benefits of participation. European Journal of Public Health, 27(5), 929–931. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckx124

• Mehta, G., Macdonald, S., Cronberg, A., Rosselli, M., Khera-Butler, T., Sumpter, C., Al-Khatib, S., Jain, A., Maurice, J., Charalambous, C., Holt, A., Neuberger, J., & Moore, K. (2018). Short-term abstinence from alcohol and changes in cardiovascular risk factors, liver function tests and cancer-related growth factors: A prospective observational study. BMJ Open, 8(5), e020673. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020673

• Munsterman, I. D., Groefsema, M. M., Weijers, G., Wiersma-van Tilburg, A. J., Hendrikse, J., Willemse, J. L., Engels, M. A., Kuppens, S. M. I., Drenth, J. P. H., & Tjwa, E. T. T. L. (2018). Biochemical effects on the liver of 1 month of alcohol abstinence in moderate alcohol consumers. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 53(4), 435–438. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agy031

• Strowger, M., Meisel, M. K., Uriarte, S., & Colby, S. M. (2025). A scoping review of Dry January: Evidence and future directions. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 60(5), agaf057. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agaf057

• Yeomans, H. (2019). New year, new you: A qualitative study of Dry January, self-formation and positive regulation. Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 26(6), 460–468. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687637.2018.1534944