Drinking Patterns and Rates of Alcohol-Related Problems in Three Urban Populations

Average alcohol
consumption is clearly related to alcohol consequences (both positive
and negative). However, studies are beginning to suggest that drinking
patterns also play an important role. Researchers examined whether
drinking patterns, in addition to overall consumption, contributed
to differences in alcohol-related problems. They analyzed interview
data from 1118 men and 1125 women randomly selected from Russian,
Czech Republic, and Polish population registries.

  • Russian men,
    compared with Czech and Polish men, were significantly more likely
    to report >=2 positive responses to the CAGE alcohol screening
    test (35%, 19%, and 14%, respectively) and >=2 negative consequences
    related to consumption (18%, 10%, and 8%, respectively). However,
    Russian men did not have the highest mean annual intake (5 liters
    versus 9 liters for Czech men and 4 liters for Polish men).
  • Russian
    men drank less frequently on average per year than did Czech
    and Polish men (67 drinking sessions, 179 sessions, and 79 sessions,
    respectively).
  • Russian men
    consumed much more on average per drinking session than did Czech
    and Polish men (mean 71 g, 45 g, and 46 g, respectively) and
    were more likely to drink >=80, >=120, or >=160 g of
    alcohol on an occasion.
  • Women drank
    less and had fewer negative consequences than did men. Further,
    patterns across the national samples of women did not differ
    significantly.

Comments:

In this study,
consuming large amounts per drinking session explained a substantial
part of the differences in negative consequences among the 3 populations.
These findings suggest that average consumption alone does not determine
alcohol-related problems at the population level.



R.
Curtis Ellison, MD

Reference:

Bobak M, Room R, Pikhart
H, et al. Contribution of drinking patterns to differences in rates
of alcohol related problems between three urban populations. J
Epidemiol Community Health
. 2004;58(3):238–242.
(view
abstract)

Post Your Comment

Comments are moderated and will not appear immediately.
Email address is for verification only; it will not be displayed.