Beliefs about the cardiovascular benefits of drinking wine in the adult population of Ontario

How do individuals rate their health compared to others? findings based on a nationally representative sample in Germany

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to explore the determinants of health comparisons (i.e., how individuals rate their health compared to other individuals in their age bracket) in the general adult population (total sample and in different age groups).

METHODS

Data were used from the general adult population in Germany (wave 46, n = 3,876 individuals; November 2021 to January 2022), based on the GESIS panel, which is a probability-based mixed-mode panel. Health comparisons were used as outcome measure. Socioeconomic, lifestyle-related and health-related determinants were included in regression analysis. Robustness checks were conducted.

RESULTS

Regressions showed that more favorable health comparisons were associated with being male (among individuals up to 39 years), higher age (among the total sample), higher education (among the total sample and individuals up to 39 years), higher income (among the total sample and individuals aged 40 to 64 years), not "being married, and living together with a spouse" (among the total sample), never eating meat (among the total sample, individuals up to 39 years and particularly individuals aged 40 to 64 years), drinking alcohol (among the total sample, individuals aged 40 to 64 years and individuals aged 65 years and over), a higher frequency of sports activities (all groups) and a higher satisfaction with health (also in all groups).

CONCLUSION

In addition to the evident link between health satisfaction and health comparisons, regression analysis revealed that certain socioeconomic factors, such as a higher income level, along with positive lifestyle-related factors - especially among middle-aged individuals - were significantly associated with more positive health comparisons. This knowledge is required in order to support individuals at risk for negative health comparisons. This is important because negative health comparisons can contribute to poor well-being and poor health outcomes.

The impact of promoting revised UK low-risk drinking guidelines on alcohol consumption: interrupted time series analysis

Background

The UK’s Chief Medical Officers revised the UK alcohol drinking guidelines in 2016 to ≤ 14 units per week (1 unit = 10 ml/8 g ethanol) for men and women. Previously, the guideline stated that men should not regularly consume more than 3–4 units per day and women should not regularly consume more than 2–3 units per day.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of promoting revised UK drinking guidelines on alcohol consumption.

Design

Interrupted time series analysis of observational data.

Setting

England, March 2014 to October 2017.

Participants

A total of 74,388 adults aged ≥ 16 years living in private households in England.

Interventions

Promotion of revised UK low-risk drinking guidelines.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome – alcohol consumption measured by the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption score. Secondary outcomes – average weekly consumption measured using graduated frequency, monthly alcohol consumption per capita adult (aged ≥ 16 years) derived from taxation data, monthly number of hospitalisations for alcohol poisoning (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision: T51.0, T51.1 and T51.9) and assault (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision: X85–Y09), and further measures of influences on behaviour change.

Data sources

The Alcohol Toolkit Study, a monthly cross-sectional survey and NHS Digital’s Hospital Episode Statistics.

Results

The revised drinking guidelines were not subject to large-scale promotion after the initial January 2016 announcement. An analysis of news reports found that mentions of the guidelines were mostly factual, and spiked during January 2016. In December 2015, the modelled average Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption score was 2.719 out of 12.000 and was decreasing by 0.003 each month. After the January 2016 announcement, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test – Consumption scores did not decrease significantly (β = 0.001, 95% confidence interval –0.079 to 0.099). However, the trend did change significantly such that scores subsequently increased by 0.005 each month (β = 0.008, 95% confidence interval 0.001 to 0.015). This change is equivalent to 0.5% of the population moving each month from drinking two or three times per week to drinking four or more times per week. Secondary analyses indicated that the change in trend began 6 months before the guideline announcement. The secondary outcome measures showed conflicting results, with no significant changes in consumption measures and no substantial changes in influences on behaviour change, but immediate reductions in hospitalisations of 7.3% for assaults and 15.4% for alcohol poisonings.

Limitations

The pre-intervention data collection period was only 2 months for influences on behaviour change and the graduated frequency measure. Our conclusions may be generalisable only to scenarios in which guidelines are announced but not promoted.

Conclusions

The announcement of revised UK low-risk drinking guidelines was not associated with clearly detectable changes in drinking behaviour. Observed reductions in alcohol-related hospitalisations are unlikely to be attributable to the revised guidelines. Promotion of the guidelines may have been prevented by opposition to the revised guidelines from the government's alcohol industry partners or because reduction in alcohol consumption was not a government priority or because practical obstacles prevented independent public health organisations from promoting the guidelines. Additional barriers to the effectiveness of guidelines may include low public understanding and a need for guidelines to engage more with how drinkers respond to and use them in practice.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15189062.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 8, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Prescribing or dispensing medication represents the best opportunity for GPs and pharmacists to engage older people in alcohol-related clinical conversations

OBJECTIVES

This research aimed to identify older Australian drinkers' knowledge about Australian Alcohol Guidelines and their beliefs about the risks and benefits of alcohol; their recall of alcohol-related issues being raised with them by their community pharmacist and General Practitioner (GP); and their receptiveness to alcohol-related information being provided by either health professional.

METHODS

This research was conducted in Perth, Western Australia. Flyers calling for participants were placed in local health and service centres, and advertisements were placed in local media. Participants who met eligibility requirements were posted a survey pack (n = 190) including an information letter, consent form, quantitative survey, and return addressed, postage paid envelope. 188 people aged over 60 years returned completed questionnaires.

KEY FINDINGS

Women were more familiar with national alcohol guidelines, and were more conservative about the potential health benefits of alcohol. While 90% of participants were receptive to their GP asking about their alcohol use, only 30% of men and 20% of women recalled their GP raising this issue with them in the prior 12 months. Of these, high-risk drinkers were six times more likely than low-risk drinkers to have been asked by their GP. Likewise, 50% of men and 65% of women were receptive to having alcohol-related health conversations with their community pharmacist, but less than 4% recalled their pharmacist raising this issue. Participants were most receptive to receiving information about alcohol-medication interactions.

CONCLUSIONS

This research highlights that prescribing and dispensing medication represents the ideal opportunity for health professionals to deliver alcohol-related information to older people.

Drinking habits of older Canadians: a comparison of the 1994 and 2004 national surveys

ABSTRACT This study examines changes in the alcohol consumption of Canadians aged 55 and older from the 1990s to the 2000s and investigates whether the differences persist after controlling for the socio-demographic composition of the samples. The data included two subsamples of respondents 55 to 74 years of age from two cross-sectional Canadian surveys: the 1994 CADS (1,071 men and 1,446 women) and the 2004 GENACIS (1,494 men and 2,176 women). One-way ANOVAs revealed significantly higher rates of drinkers and binge drinking in 2004 but no differences in drinking profiles. Regression analyses showed that the observed differences did not disappear when controlling for socio-demographic composition. The higher rates of drinkers in 2004 may be explained by a social and environmental context that was more favourable to alcohol consumption in the 2000s. More research is needed to disentangle the age-cohort-period effects on alcohol consumption among Canadian older adults.

The importance of drinking frequency in evaluating individuals' drinking patterns: implications for the development of national drinking guidelines

AIMS

This paper examines the relationship between frequency of drinking, usual daily consumption and frequency of binge drinking, taking into consideration possible age and gender differences.

PARTICIPANTS AND DESIGN

Subjects were 10 466 current drinkers (5743 women and 4723 men) aged between 18 and 76 years, who participated in the GENACIS Canada (GENder Alcohol and Culture: an International Study) study.

SETTING

Canada.

MEASUREMENTS

The independent variable was the annual drinking frequency. The dependent variables were the usual daily quantity consumed, annual, monthly and weekly frequency of binge drinking (five drinks or more on one occasion).

FINDINGS

Logistic regressions show (i) that those who drink less than once a week are less likely than weekly drinkers to take more than two drinks when they do drink; (ii) that the usual daily quantity consumed by weekly drinkers is not related to their frequency of drinking; but that (iii) the risk and frequency of binge drinking increase with the frequency of drinking.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that risk and frequency of binge drinking among Canadians increases with their frequency of drinking, any public recommendation to drink moderately should be made with great caution.

Moderate alcohol intake and motor vehicle crashes: the conflict between health advantage and at-risk use

AIMS

To review the evidence on moderate alcohol intake and motor vehicle crash (MVC) risk, and discuss the possible public health tension in balancing risk reduction and increment with respect to moderate alcohol intake.

METHOD

A Medline review was conducted on moderate alcohol intake, MVC, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risks.

RESULT

Moderate alcohol intake (24 g ethanol, two US standard drinks, or less a day) is associated with 20% reduction in risk of CVD. Public awareness of this may contribute to why rates of driving with blood alcohol content (BAC) <0.08 g/dl in the United States are static. Studies show 3- to 17-fold increased risk of a fatal MVC with BAC < 0.08 g/dl compared to sober drivers. The United States has 0.08 g/dl BAC laws, higher than that reached by a driver drinking two drinks per day or less.

CONCLUSION

The public should be educated that although moderate alcohol drinking may not violate BAC laws, it still carries significant risk of MVC. Current BAC laws in some countries needs re-evaluation.