Search

In the UK, harm caused by alcohol has worsened since 2020. A recent report from the Institute of Alcohol Studies projecting future rates of major alcohol-related diseases highlights what this means for health and healthcare. The authors argue that this additional burden is not inevitable if effective policies are introduced.

Introduction To gain a better understanding of the complex and independent associations between different measures of socioeconomic position (SEP) and smoking in England. Aims and Methods Between March 2013 and January 2019 data were collected from 120 496 adults aged 16+ in England taking part in the Smoking Toolkit Study. Of these, 18.04% (n = 21 720) were current smokers. Six indicators of SEP were measured: social grade, employment status, educational qualifications, home and car ownership and income. Models were constructed using ridge regression to assess the contribution of each measure of SEP, taking account of high collinearity. Results The strongest predictor of smoking status was housing tenure. Those who did not own their own home had twice the odds of smoking compared with homeowners (odds ratio [OR] = 2.01). Social grade, educational qualification, and income were also good predictors. Those in social grades C1 (OR = 1.04), C2 (OR = 1.29), D (OR = 1.39), and E (OR = 1.78) had higher odds of smoking than those in social grade AB. Similarly, those with A-level/equivalent (OR = 1.15), GCSE/vocational (OR = 1.48), other/still studying (OR = 1.12), and no post-16 qualifications (OR = 1.48) had higher odds of smoking than those with university qualifications, as did those who earned in the lowest (OR = 1.23), third (OR = 1.18), and second quartiles (OR = 1.06) compared with those earning in the highest. Associations between smoking and employment (OR = 1.03) and car ownership (OR = 1.05) were much smaller. Conclusions Of a variety of socioeconomic measures, housing tenure appears to be the strongest independent predictor of smoking in England, followed by social grade, educational qualifications, and income. Employment status and car ownership have the lowest predictive power. Implications This study used ridge regression, a technique which takes into account high collinearity between variables, to gain a better understanding of the independent associations between different measures of SEP and smoking in England. The findings provide guidance as to which SEP measures one could use when trying to identifying individuals most at risk from smoking, with housing tenure identified as the strongest independent predictor.

Aims Adolescents in the UK are among the heaviest drinkers in Europe. The World Health Organization recommends alcohol product labelling to inform consumers about product information and health risks associated with alcohol use. This study investigates support for product information and health messaging on alcohol packaging among UK adolescents. Methods The 2019 UK Youth Alcohol Policy Survey was an online cross-sectional survey among 3388 adolescents aged 11–19. Participants indicated their support for seven forms of messaging on packaging (e.g. number of alcohol units, links to health conditions). Logistic regression models investigated associations between support for each of the seven forms and alcohol use, perceived risks of alcohol use, and previous exposure to messaging. Results Between 60 and 79% of adolescents were supportive of different aspects of product labelling. Compared to lower-risk drinkers, higher-risk drinkers (AUDIT-C 5+) had higher odds of supporting including the number of alcohol units (OR: 1.82, 95% CI: 1.31–2.54), calories (OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.04–1.68), and strength of the product (OR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.19–2.52) but lower odds of supporting including information on alcohol-related health conditions (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.53–0.87). Adolescents who perceived risks of alcohol use more strongly were more likely to support all forms of product information and messaging. Conclusions The majority of adolescents supported improved alcohol labelling. Higher-risk drinkers were supportive of improved product information but less supportive of health-related messaging. Adolescents who believe alcohol carries health risks were more likely to support messaging.

Aims: To evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alcohol screening and brief intervention for adolescents delivered within the school setting. Method: Multi-centre, pragmatic, prospective randomised controlled trial conducted across different regions of England. We evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention (ASBI) in addition to Personal Health and Social Education (PHSE) compared to PHSE alone for adolescents aged 15 years in school. Our primary outcome was quantity of alcohol consumed at 12-months, assessed in units of alcohol. We also assessed alcohol-related problems, drinking motives and health and wellbeing. The trial was registered with current controlled trials (ISRCTN45691494). Results: While 60% of the study population had reduced their alcohol consumption at month 12, we found no difference in effectiveness between ASBI and PHSE for any of our outcome measures. The ASBI was not found to be cost-effective compared to PHSE. Conclusions: The results of the study suggest that it is not worthwhile implementing ASBI in a school setting. This concurs with other recent evidence of the effectiveness of ASBI for adolescent populations.

Alcohol use increases throughout adolescence. Emergency department (ED) attendance is an opportunity for alcohol screening and brief intervention (ASBI), which is effective for adults. This trial evaluated the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of ASBI compared with screening alone (SA) in high-risk adolescents.Multi-centre, three-group, single-blind, individually randomized trial with follow-ups after 6 and 12 months in 10 ED settings in England. From October 2014 to May 2015 we screened 3327 adolescents aged 14 to 18 years, of whom 756 (22.7%) scored at least 3 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: consumption (AUDIT-C) and consented to participate in this trial. Mean age was 16.1 years; 50.2% were female and 84.9% were white.Interventions were personalized feedback and brief advice (PFBA), personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention (eBI) and SA.The primary outcome was the weekly alcohol consumed in standard UK units (8 g ethanol) at 12 months post-randomization, derived from extended AUDIT-C. Economic outcomes included quality of life and service use, from perspectives of both the National Health Service and personal social services (NHSPSS) and society.At 12 months, mean weekly consumption was 2.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.38-3.70] standard units for the SA group, 3.56 (95% CI = 2.90, 4.32) for PFBA and 3.18 (95% CI = 2.50, 3.97) for eBI, showing no significant differences. The PFBA group consumed mean 0.57 (-0.36, 1.70) units more than SA; and eBIs consumed 0.19 (-0.71, 1.30) more. Bayes factors suggested lack of effectiveness explained non-significance. From the NHSPSS perspective, economic analysis showed that PFBA and eBI were not cost-effective compared with SA: PFBA yielded incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £6213 (-£736 843, £812 884), with the intervention having 54% probability of being cost-effective compared with SA at the £20 000 WTP threshold.In emergency departments in England, neither personalized feedback and brief advice nor personalized feedback plus electronic brief intervention showed evidence of being effective or cost-effective when compared with screening alone in reducing alcohol consumption among adolescents.

Background Alcohol consumption and related harm increase rapidly from the age of 12 years. We evaluated whether alcohol screening and brief intervention is effective and cost-effective in delaying hazardous or harmful drinking amongst low-risk or abstaining adolescents attending Emergency Departments (EDs). Methods This ten -centre, three-arm, parallel-group, single-blind, pragmatic, individually randomised trial screened ED attenders aged between 14 and 17 years for alcohol consumption. We sampled at random one third of those scoring at most 2 on AUDIT-C who had access to the internet and, if aged under 16, were Gillick competent or had informed consent from parent or guardian. We randomised them between: screening only (control intervention); one session of face-to-face Personalised Feedback and Brief Advice (PFBA); and PFBA plus an electronic brief intervention (eBI) on smartphone or web. We conducted follow-up after six and 12 months. The principal outcomes were alcohol consumed over the 3 months before 12-month follow up, measured by AUDIT-C; and quality-adjusted life-years. Findings Between October 2014 and May 2015, we approached 5,016 eligible patients of whom 3,326 consented to be screened and participate in the trial; 2,571 of these were low-risk drinkers or abstainers, consuming an average 0.14 units per week. We randomised: 304 to screening only; 285 to PFBA; and 294 to PFBA and eBI. We found no significant difference between groups, notably in weekly alcohol consumption: those receiving screening only drank 0.10 units (95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.18); PFBA 0.12 (0.06 to 0.21); PFBA and eBI 0.10 (0.05 to 0.19). Interpretation While drinking levels remained low in this population, this trial found no evidence that PFBA with or without eBI was more effective than screening alone in reducing or delaying alcohol consumption.

Background: Whether alcohol and cannabis complement or substitute each other has been studied for over two decades. In the changing cannabis policy landscape, debates are moving rapidly and spill-over effects on other substances are of interest. Aims: update and extend a previous systematic review, by: (a) identifying new human behavioural studies reporting on substitution and/or complementarity of alcohol and cannabis, and (b) additionally including animal studies. Methods: We replicated the search strategy of an earlier systematic review, supplemented with a new search for animal studies. Search results were crossed checked against the earlier review and reference lists were hand searched. Findings were synthesised using a narrative synthesis. Results: Sixty-five articles were included (64 in humans, one in animals). We synthesised findings into categories: patterns of use, substitution practices, economic relationship, substance use disorders, policy evaluation, others and animal studies. Overall, 30 studies found evidence for substitution, 17 for complementarity, 14 did not find evidence for either, and four found evidence for both. Conclusions: Overall, the evidence regarding complementarity and substitution of cannabis and alcohol is mixed. We identified stronger support for substitution than complementarity, though evidence indicates different effects in different populations and to some extent across different study designs. The quality of studies varied and few were designed specifically to address this question. Dedicated high-quality research is warranted.

Purpose The Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS), 14 positively worded statements, is a validated instrument to measure mental wellbeing on a population level. Less is known about the population distribution of the shorter seven-item version (SWEMWBS) or its performance as an instrument to measure wellbeing. Methods Using the Health Survey for England 2010–2013 (n = 27,169 adults aged 16+, nationally representative of the population), age- and sex-specific norms were estimated using means and percentiles. Criterion validity was examined using: (1) Spearman correlations (ρ) for SWEMWBS with General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), happiness index, EQ-VAS (2) a multinomial logit model with SWEMWBS (low, medium and high wellbeing) as the outcome and demographic, social and health behaviours as explanatory variables. Relative validity was examined by comparing SWEMWBS with WEMWBS using: (1) Spearman correlations (continuous data), and (2) the weighted kappa statistic (categorical), within population subgroups. Results Mean (median) SWEMWBS was 23.7 (23.2) for men and 23.2 (23.2) for women (p = 0.100). Spearman correlations were moderately sized for the happiness index (ρ = 0.53, P

Objective To estimate and compare the optimal cut-off score of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) and AUDIT-C in identifying at-risk alcohol consumption, heavy episodic alcohol use, ICD-10 alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence in adolescents attending ED in England. Design Opportunistic cross-sectional survey. Setting 10 emergency departments across England. Participants Adolescents (n = 5377) aged between their 10th and 18th birthday who attended emergency departments between December 2012 and May 2013. Measures Scores on the AUDIT and AUDIT-C. At-risk alcohol consumption and monthly episodic alcohol consumption in the past 3 months were derived using the time-line follow back method. Alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence was assessed in accordance with ICD-10 criteria using the MINI-KID. Findings AUDIT-C with a score of 3 was more effective for at-risk alcohol use (AUC 0.81; sensitivity 87%, specificity 97%), heavy episodic use (0.84; 76%, 98%) and alcohol abuse (0.98; 91%, 90%). AUDIT with a score of 7 was more effective in identifying alcohol dependence (0.92; 96%, 94%). Conclusions The 3-item AUDIT-C is more effective than AUDIT in screening adolescents for at-risk alcohol use, heavy episodic alcohol use and alcohol abuse. AUDIT is more effective than AUDIT-C for the identification of alcohol dependence.

Objective To use the relation between cigarette consumption and cardiovascular disease to quantify the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke for light smoking (one to five cigarettes/day). Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline 1946 to May 2015, with manual searches of references. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Prospective cohort studies with at least 50 events, reporting hazard ratios or relative risks (both hereafter referred to as relative risk) compared with never smokers or age specific incidence in relation to risk of coronary heart disease or stroke. Data extraction/synthesis MOOSE guidelines were followed. For each study, the relative risk was estimated for smoking one, five, or 20 cigarettes per day by using regression modelling between risk and cigarette consumption. Relative risks were adjusted for at least age and often additional confounders. The main measure was the excess relative risk for smoking one cigarette per day (RR1_per_day−1) expressed as a proportion of that for smoking 20 cigarettes per day (RR20_per_day−1), expected to be about 5% assuming a linear relation between risk and consumption (as seen with lung cancer). The relative risks for one, five, and 20 cigarettes per day were also pooled across all studies in a random effects meta-analysis. Separate analyses were done for each combination of sex and disorder. Results The meta-analysis included 55 publications containing 141 cohort studies. Among men, the pooled relative risk for coronary heart disease was 1.48 for smoking one cigarette per day and 2.04 for 20 cigarettes per day, using all studies, but 1.74 and 2.27 among studies in which the relative risk had been adjusted for multiple confounders. Among women, the pooled relative risks were 1.57 and 2.84 for one and 20 cigarettes per day (or 2.19 and 3.95 using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). Men who smoked one cigarette per day had 46% of the excess relative risk for smoking 20 cigarettes per day (53% using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors), and women had 31% of the excess risk (38% using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). For stroke, the pooled relative risks for men were 1.25 and 1.64 for smoking one or 20 cigarettes per day (1.30 and 1.56 using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). In women, the pooled relative risks were 1.31 and 2.16 for smoking one or 20 cigarettes per day (1.46 and 2.42 using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). The excess risk for stroke associated with one cigarette per day (in relation to 20 cigarettes per day) was 41% for men and 34% for women (or 64% and 36% using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). Relative risks were generally higher among women than men. Conclusions Smoking only about one cigarette per day carries a risk of developing coronary heart disease and stroke much greater than expected: around half that for people who smoke 20 per day. No safe level of smoking exists for cardiovascular disease. Smokers should aim to quit instead of cutting down to significantly reduce their risk of these two common major disorders.

AimsTo review the evidence on the effect of brief interventions (BIs) for alcohol among adults with risky alcohol consumption and comorbid mental health conditions.MethodsA systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before May 2016 was undertaken and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. The findings were combined in a narrative synthesis. The risk of bias was assessed for included trials.ResultsSeventeen RCTs were included in the review and narrative synthesis: 11 in common mental health problems, and 6 in severe mental illness. There was considerable heterogeneity in study populations, BI delivery mode and intensity, outcome measures and risk of bias. Where BI was compared with a minimally active control, BI was associated with a significant reduction in alcohol consumption in four out of nine RCTs in common mental disorders and two out of five RCTs in severe mental illness. Where BI was compared with active comparator groups (such as motivational interviewing or cognitive behavioural therapy), findings were also mixed. Differences in the findings may be partly due to differences in study design, such as the intensity of BI and possibly the risk of bias.ConclusionsOverall, the evidence is mixed regarding the effects of alcohol BI in participants with comorbid mental health conditions. Future well-designed research is required to answer this question more definitively.

Adolescence is a critical developmental stage when young people make lifestyle choices that have the potential to impact on their current and future health and social wellbeing. The relationship between substance use and criminal activity is complex but there is clear evidence that the prevalence of problematic substance use is far higher among adolescent offenders than the general adolescent population. Adolescent offenders are a marginalized and vulnerable population who are significantly more likely to experience health and social inequalities in later life than their non-offending peers. There is a paucity of evidence on effective interventions to address substance use and risk-taking behaviours in adolescent offender populations but it is clear that preventative or abstinence orientated interventions are not effective. RISKIT-CJS is an intervention developed in collaboration with young people taking account of the current best evidence. Feasibility and pilot studies have found the intervention addresses the needs of adolescents, is acceptable and has demonstrated potential in reducing substance use and risk-taking behavior. The study is a mixed method, two-armed, prospective, pragmatic randomized controlled trial with individual randomisation to either treatment as usual alone or the RISKIT-CJS intervention in addition to treatment as usual. Adolescents, aged 13 to 17 years inclusive, engaged with the criminal justice system who are identified as having problematic substance use are eligible to participate. The study will be conducted across three geographical areas; South and South East England, London and North East England between March 2017 and February 2019. The study represents an ambitious programme of work to address an area of need for a marginalized and vulnerable population. ISRCTN77037777 registered 15/09/2016.

Background : This study predicts the implications of under-reporting of alcohol consumption in England for alcohol consumption above Government drinking thresholds. Methods : Two nationally representative samples of private households in England were used: General LiFestyle survey (GLF) and Health Survey for England (HSE) 2008. Participants were 9608 adults with self-reported alcohol consumption on heaviest drinking day in the last week (HSE) and 12 490 adults with self-reported average weekly alcohol consumption (GLF). Alcohol consumption in both surveys was revised to account for under-reporting in three hypothetical scenarios. The prevalence of drinking more than UK Government guidelines of 21/14 (men/women) alcohol units a week, and 4/3 units per day, and the prevalence of binge drinking (>8/6 units) were investigated using logistic regression. Results : Among drinkers, mean weekly alcohol intake increases to 20.8 units and mean alcohol intake on heaviest drinking day in the last week increases to 10.6 units. Over one-third of adults are drinking above weekly guidelines and over three-quarters drank above daily limits on their heaviest drinking day in the last week. The revision changes some of the significant predictors of drinking above thresholds. In the revised scenario, women have similar odds to men of binge drinking and higher odds of drinking more than daily limits, compared with lower odds in the original survey. Conclusion : Revising alcohol consumption assuming equal under-reporting across the population does not have an equal effect on the proportion of adults drinking above weekly or daily thresholds. It is crucial that further research explores the population distribution of under-reporting.

PurposeGlobally, alcohol use is the leading cause of ill health and life years lost in adolescents, although its clinical impact is often overlooked, particularly in England where most research is based in schools. This study aims to examine the prevalence of alcohol consumption and the association between alcohol consumption and age of onset with health and social consequences among adolescents presenting to emergency departments (EDs). Methods Consecutive attenders (n = 5,576) aged 10–17 years at 10 EDs were included. Information was collected on general health and functioning, quality of life, alcohol use, and alcohol-related health and social consequences. Results Nearly 40% of adolescents reported the consumption of alcohol that was more than a sip in their lifetime. Age of the first alcohol consumption before the age of 15 years was associated with tobacco use (p < .001), lower quality of life (p = .003), and evidence of an alcohol use disorder (p = .002). It was also associated with general social functioning (problems with conduct p = .001 and hyperactivity p = .001) and alcohol-related health and social consequences (accident p = .046, problems with a parent p = .017, school p = .0117, or police p = .012). Conclusions Rates of alcohol consumption in adolescents presenting to the ED were similar to those reported in schools in England and globally. Associations of alcohol consumption and earlier onset of drinking with poorer health and social functioning were observed. The ED can offer an opportunity for the identification of hazardous alcohol use in adolescents. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research (RP-PG-0609-10162)

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown heavier drinkers are less likely to respond to surveys and require extended efforts to recruit. This study applies the continuum of resistance model to explore how survey estimates of alcohol consumption may be affected by non-response bias in three consecutive years of a general population survey in England.METHODS: Using the Health Survey for England (HSE) survey years 2011-13, number of contact attempts (1-6 and 7+) were explored by socio-demographic and drinking characteristics. The odds of drinking more than various thresholds were modelled using logistic regression. Assuming that non-participants were similar to those who were difficult to contact (the continuum of resistance model), the effect of non-response on measures of drinking was investigated.RESULTS: In the fully-adjusted regression model, women who required 7+ calls were significantly more likely to drink more than the UK Government's recommended daily limit (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.33, P = 0.003) and to engage in heavy episodic drinking (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.07-1.42, P = 0.004), however this was not significant in men in the fully-adjusted model. When the continuum of resistance model was applied, there was an increase in average weekly alcohol consumption of 1.8 units among men (a 12.6% relative increase), and an increase of 1.5 units among women (a 20.5% relative increase). There was also an increase in the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking of 2.5% among men (an 12.0% relative increase) and of 2.0% among women (a 15.8% relative increase), although other measures of drinking were less affected.CONCLUSION: Overall alcohol consumption and the prevalence of heavy episodic drinking were higher among HSE participants who required more extended efforts to contact. The continuum of resistance model suggests non-response bias does affect survey estimates of alcohol consumption.

No abstract available.

Background Several studies have found participants pour more than 1 standard drink or unit as their usual glass. This is the first study to measure actual and perceived amounts of alcohol in a self-defined usual glass of wines and spirits in the general population. Methods Participants were a convenience sample of adults who drink alcohol or who pour drinks for other people (n = 283, 54% women) at 6 sites in South East England. The survey was face to face and comprised a self-completion questionnaire and pouring task. Estimation accuracy, categorised as correct (±0.5 units), underestimate (>0.5 units), or overestimate (>0.5 units) was the main outcome. Results The mean number of units poured was 1.90 (SD 0.80; n = 264) for wine and 1.93 (SD 0.78; n = 201) for spirits. The amount of alcohol in a self-defined usual glass was estimated in 440 glasses (248 wine and 192 spirits). Overestimation took place in 42% glasses of spirit poured and 29% glasses of wine poured, and underestimation in 17 and 19%, respectively. Multinomial logistic regression found volume poured to be significantly associated with underestimating both wines and spirits, and additionally for wine only, belonging to a non-white ethnic group and being unemployed or retired. Not having a university degree was significantly associated with overestimating both drink types. Conclusions This study is the first in the general population and did not identify systematic underestimation of the amount of alcohol in a self-defined usual glass. Underestimation is significantly associated with volume poured for both drink types; therefore, advocating pouring smaller glasses could reduce underestimation of alcohol consumption.

BACKGROUND ; There is uncertainty over whether maternal smoking is associated with birth defects. We conducted the first ever comprehensive systematic review to establish which specific malformations are associated with smoking. METHODS ; Observational studies published 1959-2010 were identified (Medline), and included if they reported the odds ratio (OR) for having a non-chromosomal birth defect among women who smoked during pregnancy compared with non-smokers. ORs adjusted for potential confounders were extracted (e.g. maternal age and alcohol), otherwise unadjusted estimates were used. One hundred and seventy-two articles were used in the meta-analyses: a total of 173 687 malformed cases and 11 674 332 unaffected controls. RESULTS ; Significant positive associations with maternal smoking were found for: cardiovascular/heart defects [OR 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02-1.17]; musculoskeletal defects (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05-1.27); limb reduction defects (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.15-1.39); missing/extra digits (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.99-1.41); clubfoot (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10-1.47); craniosynostosis (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03-1.73); facial defects (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06-1.35); eye defects (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11-1.40); orofacial clefts (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.20-1.36); gastrointestinal defects (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.18-1.36); gastroschisis (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.28-1.76); anal atresia (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06-1.36); hernia (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.23-1.59); and undescended testes (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.25). There was a reduced risk for hypospadias (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.95) and skin defects (OR 0.82, 0.75-0.89). For all defects combined the OR was 1.01 (0.96-1.07), due to including defects with a reduced risk and those with no association (including chromosomal defects). CONCLUSIONS ; Birth defects that are positively associated with maternal smoking should now be included in public health educational materials to encourage more women to quit before or during pregnancy.

Most published research utilizes an AUDIT score of8 as the threshold for hazardous drinking. Recent research suggests that this limit should be amended for younger drinkers (aged 18-35 years). This study aimed to explore the effect of a revision to AUDIT cut scores.Applying Foxcroft et al.'s [(2015) Accuracy of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test for detecting problem drinking in 18-35 year-olds in England: method comparison study. Alcohol Alcohol 50, 244-50] suggested cut off scores of nine for males and four for females to the most recent Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (2007) data.This more than doubles the prevalence of female hazardous drinkers, and significantly increases the overall rate for that age group when compared with the standard threshold of8.The prevalence of hazardous drinking among females ages 18-30 may be significantly higher than current estimates.

Study objective We adopt a comparative framework to measure the extent to which variance in the efficacy of alcohol brief interventions to reduce hazardous and harmful drinking at less than or equal to 5-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up in emergency department settings can be determined by differences between study populations (targeted injury and noninjury specific). Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials published before September 2016 was undertaken. Twenty-three high-quality and methodologically similar randomized controlled trials were eligible, with a total number of 15,173 participants included. Primary outcome measure was efficacy of brief intervention compared with a control group in reducing quantity of alcohol consumed. An inverse variance model was applied to measure the effect of treatment in standard mean differences for brief intervention and control groups. Results At 6-month follow-up, an effect in favor of brief intervention over control was identified for targeted injury studies (standardized mean difference=–0.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] –0.17 to –0.02; I 2 =0%). For pooled noninjury-specific studies, small benefits of brief intervention were evident at less than or equal to 5-month follow-up (standardized mean difference=–0.15; 95% CI –0.24 to –0.07; I 2 =0%), at 6-month follow–up (standardized mean difference=–0.08; 95% CI –0.14 to –0.01; I 2 =1%), and at 12-month follow-up (standardized mean difference=–0.08; 95% CI –0.15 to –0.01; I 2 =0%). Conclusion Meta-analysis identified noninjury-specific studies as associated with better response to brief intervention than targeted injury studies. However, the inclusion of injured patients with noninjured ones in the experimental and control groups of noninjury-specific studies limited the interpretation of this finding.

Background Under-reporting of alcohol consumption is widespread; surveys typically capture 40-60% of alcohol sales. However the population distribution of under-reporting is not well understood. Methods Mixed-methods study to identify factors associated with under-reporting, using the nationally-representative Health Survey for England (HSE) 2011 (overall response rate 66%). Comparison of retrospective computer-assisted personal interview and seven-day drinking diary (n = 3,774 adults 18+, 50% women, diary response rate 69%) to identify factors associated with diary responses exceeding those of the interview using multivariable linear regression for three outcomes: drinking days in the week recorded, volume consumed on heaviest drinking day in the week recorded, and weekly alcohol consumption. Qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 10) explored reasons for under-reporting in further detail. Results Number of drinking days was slightly greater in the diary than the interview (P