Search

BACKGROUND: Hazardous drinking has been found to be higher among young university students compared to their non-university peers. Although young university students are exposed to new and exciting experiences, including greater availability and emphasis on social functions involving alcohol there are few multi strategy comprehensive interventions aimed at reducing alcohol-related harms. METHODS: Random cross sectional online surveys were administered to 18-24 year old students studying at the main campus of a large metropolitan university in Perth, Western Australia. Prior to the completion of the second survey an alcohol intervention was implemented on campus. Completed surveys were received from 2465 (Baseline; T1) and 2422 (Post Year 1: T2) students. Students who consumed alcohol in the past 12 months were categorised as low risk or hazardous drinkers using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Due to the cross sectional nature of the two samples two-tailed two-proportion z-test and two sample t-tests were employed to determine statistical significance between the two time periods for categorical and continuous variables respectively. RESULTS: At T1 and T2 89.1 % and 87.2 % of the total sample reported drinking alcohol in the past month respectively. Hazardous levels of alcohol consumption reduced slightly between T1 (39.7 %) and T2 (38 %). In both time periods hazardous drinkers reported significantly higher mean scores for experienced harm, second-hand harm and witnessed harm scores compared to low risk drinkers (p <0.001). Hazardous drinkers were significantly more likely to experience academic problems due to their alcohol consumption and to report more positive alcohol expectations than low risk drinkers at both time periods (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Harms and problems for students who report hazardous drinking are of concern and efforts should be made to ensure integrated and targeted strategies reach higher risk students and focus on

Background: Hazardous alcohol consumption and associated harms are high among young university students. The university environment is conducive to excessive alcohol consumption with studies finding young university students to drink alcohol at higher levels than their non-university peers. Methods: A random sample of 18 - 24-year-old undergraduate, internal university students completed a survey (n = 2465) to investigate differences in self-reported personal, secondhand and witnessed alcohol-related harms, alcohol expectancies, pre-loading, and friends’ alcohol consumption between low risk and hazardous drinkers. Univariate and multivariate analyses are reported. Results: Almost 40% of students who had consumed alcohol in the past year reported drinking at hazardous levels. Univariate analyses found students who reported hazardous drinking reported significantly higher scores relating to experienced, second-hand, witnessed and academic problems compared to low risk drinkers. Hazardous drinkers were also more likely to pre-load, to drink at higher levels when pre-loading, have more friends who drank alcohol, have more friends who drank at hazardous levels and to score higher on alcohol expectancies. However both low risk and hazardous drinkers experienced a range of harms due to their own drinking including hangover (71.2%), unprotected sex (19.3%), regretted sex (16.8%) and drink-driving (17%).Looking after an intoxicated student (34.3%) and witnessing someone pass out (37.5%) were issues for all drinkers. Experienced alcohol related harms, academic problems, alcohol expectancies, close friends’ level of alcohol consumption, pre-loading in the last four weeks and level of consumption when pre-loading were predictors of hazardous drinking (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Young undergraduate university students are at risk of a range of academic, social, emotional and physical harms associated with their own and other students’ alcohol consumption. There is a need for integr

[Abstract] INTRODUCTION: Approximately 100 loci have been definitively associated with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) susceptibility. However, they explain only a fraction of RA heritability. Interactions between polymorphisms could explain part of the remaining heritability. Multiple interactions have been reported, but only the shared epitope (SE) × protein tyrosine phosphatase nonreceptor type 22 (PTPN22) interaction has been replicated convincingly. Two recent studies deserve attention because of their quality, including their replication in a second sample collection. In one of them, researchers identified interactions between PTPN22 and seven single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). The other showed interactions between the SE and the null genotype of glutathione S-transferase Mu 1 (GSTM1) in the anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide-positive (anti-CCP+) patients. In the present study, we aimed to replicate association with RA susceptibility of interactions described in these two high-quality studies. METHODS: A total of 1,744 patients with RA and 1,650 healthy controls of Spanish ancestry were studied. Polymorphisms were genotyped by single-base extension. SE genotypes of 736 patients were available from previous studies. Interaction analysis was done using multiple methods, including those originally reported and the most powerful methods described. RESULTS: Genotypes of one of the SNPs (rs4695888) failed quality control tests. The call rate for the other eight polymorphisms was 99.9%. The frequencies of the polymorphisms were similar in RA patients and controls, except for PTPN22 SNP. None of the interactions between PTPN22 SNPs and the six SNPs that met quality control tests was replicated as a significant interaction term--the originally reported finding--or with any of the other methods. Nor was the interaction between GSTM1 and the SE replicated as a departure from additivity in anti-CCP+ patients or with any of the other methods. CONCLUSIONS: None of the interac

A statistical approach for estimating intervals of certification or biases of facilities or measurement systems including uncertainties is set forth based on MxN-order level testing, which is defined as M repetitions of the same N-order level experiment in M different facilities or in the same facility with M different measurement systems. In absence of reference values, mean facility or measurement system used for assessing intervals of certification or biases. Certification or biases of facilities or measurement systems are defined as processes for assessing probabilistic confidence intervals for facilities or measurement systems for specific tests, data reduction equations, conditions, procedures, and uncertainty analysis. Similarly, subgroup analysis performed for isolating and assessing levels of differences due to use of different model sizes (scale effects) or measurement systems. An example provided for towing tank facilities for resistance tests using standard uncertainty analysis procedures based on an international collaboration between three facilities. Although number of facilities minimum, the results demonstrate usefulness of approach and support recommendation of future collaborations between more facilities. Knowledge of intervals of certification or biases is important for design, accrediting facilities or measurement systems, and CFD validation.