Dataset Information

Deconstructing the Alcohol Harm Paradox: A Population Based Survey of Adults in England.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Alcohol Harm Paradox refers to observations that lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups consume less alcohol but experience more alcohol-related problems. However, SES is a complex concept and its observed relationship to social problems often depends on how it is measured and the demographic groups studied. Thus this study assessed socioeconomic patterning of alcohol consumption and related harm using multiple measures of SES and examined moderation of this patterning by gender and age.

Method

Data were used from the Alcohol Toolkit Study between March and September 2015 on 31,878 adults (16+) living in England. Participants completed the AUDIT which includes alcohol consumption, harm and dependence modules. SES was measured via qualifications, employment, home and car ownership, income and social-grade, plus a composite of these measures. The composite score was coded such that higher scores reflected greater social-disadvantage.

Results

We observed the Alcohol Harm Paradox for the composite SES measure, with a linear negative relationship between SES and AUDIT-Consumption scores (? = -0.036, p<0.001) and a positive relationship between lower SES and AUDIT-Harm (? = 0.022, p<0.001) and AUDIT-Dependence (? = 0.024, p<0.001) scores. Individual measures of SES displayed different, and non-linear, relationships with AUDIT modules. For example, social-grade and income had a u-shaped relationship with AUDIT-Consumption scores while education had an inverse u-shaped relationship. Almost all measures displayed an exponential relationship with AUDIT-Dependence and AUDIT-Harm scores. We identified moderating effects from age and gender, with AUDIT-Dependence scores increasing more steeply with lower SES in men and both AUDIT-Harm and AUDIT-Dependence scores increasing more steeply with lower SES in younger age groups.

Conclusion

Different SES measures appear to influence whether the Alcohol Harm Paradox is observed as a linear trend across SES groups or a phenomenon associated particularly with the most disadvantaged. The paradox also appears more concentrated in men and younger age groups.

SUBMITTER: Beard E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5040414 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Deconstructing the Alcohol Harm Paradox: A Population Based Survey of Adults in England.

Beard Emma E Brown Jamie J West Robert R Angus Colin C Brennan Alan A Holmes John J Kaner Eileen E Meier Petra P Michie Susan S

PloS one 20160928 9

<h4>Background</h4>The Alcohol Harm Paradox refers to observations that lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups consume less alcohol but experience more alcohol-related problems. However, SES is a complex concept and its observed relationship to social problems often depends on how it is measured and the demographic groups studied. Thus this study assessed socioeconomic patterning of alcohol consumption and related harm using multiple measures of SES and examined moderation of this patterning by ...[more]

PMID: 27682619

Similar Datasets

Project description:Internationally, studies show that similar levels of alcohol consumption in deprived communities (vs. more affluent) result in higher levels of alcohol-related ill health. Hypotheses to explain this alcohol harm paradox include deprived drinkers: suffering greater combined health challenges (e.g. smoking, obesity) which exacerbate effects of alcohol harms; exhibiting more harmful consumption patterns (e.g. bingeing); having a history of more harmful consumption; and disproportionately under-reporting consumption. We use a bespoke national survey to assess each of these hypotheses.A national telephone survey designed to test this alcohol harm paradox was undertaken (May 2013 to April 2014) with English adults (n = 6015). Deprivation was assigned by area of residence. Questions examined factors including: current and historic drinking patterns; combined health challenges (smoking, diet, exercise and body mass); and under-reported consumption (enhanced questioning on atypical/special occasion drinking). For each factor, analyses examined differences between deprived and more affluent individuals controlled for total alcohol consumption.Independent of total consumption, deprived drinkers were more likely to smoke, be overweight and report poor diet and exercise. Consequently, deprived increased risk drinkers (male >168-400 g, female >112-280 g alcohol/week) were >10 times more likely than non-deprived counterparts to drink in a behavioural syndrome combining smoking, excess weight and poor diet/exercise. Differences by deprivation were significant but less marked in higher risk drinkers (male >400 g, female >280 g alcohol/week). Current binge drinking was associated with deprivation independently of total consumption and a history of bingeing was also associated with deprivation in lower and increased risk drinkers.Deprived increased/higher drinkers are more likely than affluent counterparts to consume alcohol as part of a suite of health challenging behaviours including smoking, excess weight and poor diet/exercise. Together these can have multiplicative effects on risks of wholly (e.g. alcoholic liver disease) and partly (e.g. cancers) alcohol-related conditions. More binge drinking in deprived individuals will also increase risks of injury and heart disease despite total alcohol consumption not differing from affluent counterparts. Public health messages on how smoking, poor diet/exercise and bingeing escalate health risks associated with alcohol are needed, especially in deprived communities, as their absence will contribute to health inequalities.

Project description:AimTo gain a better understanding of the complex relationships of different measures of social position, educational level and income with alcohol consumption in England.MethodBetween March 2014 and April 2018 data were collected on n = 57,807 alcohol drinkers in England taking part in the Alcohol Toolkit Study (ATS). Respondents completed the AUDIT-C measure of frequency of alcohol consumption, amount consumed on a typical day and binge drinking frequency. The first two questions were used to derive a secondary measure of quantity: average weekly unit consumption. Socio-economic factors measured were: social-grade (based on occupation), employment status, educational qualifications, home and car ownership and income. Models were constructed using ridge regression to assess the contribution of each predictor taking account of high collinearity. Models were adjusted for age, gender and ethnicity.ResultsThe strongest predictor of frequency of alcohol consumption was social-grade. Those in the two lowest occupational categories of social grade (e.g. semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers, and unemployed, pensioners, casual workers) has fewer drinking occasions than those in professional-managerial occupations (β = -0.29, 95%CI -0.34 to -0.25; β = -0.31, 95%CI -0.33 to -0.29). The strongest predictor of consumed volume and binge drinking frequency was lower educational attainment: those whose highest qualification was an A-level (i.e. college/high school qualification) drank substantially more on a typical day (β = 0.28, 95%CI 0.25 to 0.31) and had a higher weekly unit intake (β = 3.55, 95%CI 3.04 to 4.05) than those with a university qualification. They also reported a higher frequency of binge drinking (β = 0.11, 95%CI 0.09 to 0.14). Housing tenure was a strong predictor of all drinking outcomes, while employment status and car ownership were the weakest predictors of most outcomes.ConclusionSocial-grade and educational attainment appear to be the strongest socioeconomic predictors of alcohol consumption indices in England, followed closely by housing tenure. Employment status and car ownership have the lowest predictive power.

Project description:ObjectivesTo estimate the prevalence, the frequency and the perpetrators of alcohol-related harm to others (AHTO) and identify factors associated with experiencing harm and aggressive harm.DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingEngland.ParticipantsAdults (general population) aged 16 and over.Outcome measuresPercentage of respondents who experienced harm. Socioeconomic and demographic factors associated with the outcomes. Outcomes were (1) experienced harm/did not experience harm and (2) experienced aggressive harm (physically threatened, physically hurt and forced/pressured into something sexual)/did not experience an aggressive harm (no aggressive harm plus no harm at all).ResultsData to support a response rate calculation were not collected; 96.3% of people surveyed completed the AHTO questions. The weighted sample was 4874; 20.1% (95% CI 18.9 to 21.4, N=980) reported experiencing harm in the previous 12 months and 4.6% (95% CI 4.0 to 5.4, N=225) reported experiencing an aggressive harm. Friends and strangers were the dominant perpetrators. Most harms (74.8%) occurred less than monthly. Factors associated with experiencing harm were: younger age (p<0.001), drinking harmfully/hazardously (p<0.001), white British (p<0.001 compared to other white groups and Asian groups and p=0.017 compared to black groups), having a disability (p<0.001), being educated (p<0.001 compared to no education) and living in private rented accommodation (p=0.004 compared with owned outright). Being in the family stage of life (defined as having children in the household) had significantly lower odds of harm (p=0.006 compared to being single), as did being retired (p<0.001 compared to being employed). Factors associated with experiencing an aggressive harm were similar.ConclusionsThis exploratory study, using data collected through the Alcohol Toolkit Survey, shows that AHTO affects 20.1% of the population of England. Even apparently minor harms, like being kept awake, can have a negative impact on health, while aggressive harms are clearly of concern. Using a standard methodology to measure harm across studies would be advantageous. Policies that focus on alcohol must take into consideration the impact of drinking on those other than the drinker.

Project description:We described public views toward harm reduction among Canadian adults and tested a social exposure model predicting support for these contentious services, drawing on theories in the morality policy, intergroup relations, addiction, and media communication literatures. A quota sample of 4645 adults (18+ years), randomly drawn from an online research panel and stratified to match age and sex distributions of adults within and across Canadian provinces, was recruited in June 2018. Participants completed survey items assessing support for harm reduction for people who use drugs (PWUD) and for seven harm reduction interventions. Additional items assessed exposure to media coverage on harm reduction, and scales assessing stigma toward PWUD (α = .72), personal familiarity with PWUD (α = .84), and disease model beliefs about addiction (α = .79). Most (64%) Canadians supported harm reduction (provincial estimates = 60% - 73%). Five of seven interventions received majority support, including: outreach (79%), naloxone (72%), drug checking (70%), needle distribution (60%) and supervised drug consumption (55%). Low-threshold opioid agonist treatment and safe inhalation interventions received less support (49% and 44%). Our social exposure model, adjusted for respondent sex, household income, political views, and education, exhibited good fit and accounted for 17% of variance in public support for harm reduction. Personal familiarity with PWUD and disease model beliefs about addiction were directly associated with support (βs = .07 and -0.10, respectively), and indirectly influenced public support via stigmatized attitudes toward PWUD (βs = 0.01 and -0.01, respectively). Strategies to increase support for harm reduction could problematize certain disease model beliefs (e.g., "There are only two possibilities for an alcoholic or drug addict-permanent abstinence or death") and creating opportunities to reduce social distance between PWUD, the public, and policy makers.

Project description:BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) is a recognised risk factor for psychiatric disorders. There is little current evidence on IPV and self-harm and suicidality, and we therefore aimed to investigate the associations between experience of lifetime and past-year IPV with suicidal thoughts, suicide attempt, and self-harm in the past year.MethodsWe analysed the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, a cross-sectional survey of 7058 adults (aged ≥16 years) in England, which used a multistage random probability sampling design and involved face-to-face interviews. Participants were asked about experience of physical violence and sexual, economic, and emotional abuse from a current or former partner, and about suicidal thoughts, suicide attempts, and self-harm. Other adversities were recorded through an adapted version of the List of Threatening Experiences. Multivariable logistic regression models quantified associations between different indicators of lifetime and past-year IPV, with past-year non-suicidal self-harm, suicidal thoughts, and suicide attempts. All analyses were weighted.FindingsUsing weighted percentages, we found that a fifth (21·4%) of 7058 adults reported lifetime experience of IPV, and that 27·2% of women and 15·3% of men had experienced IPV. Among women, 19·6% had ever experienced emotional IPV, 18·7% physical IPV, 8·5% economic IPV, and 3·7% sexual IPV, which was higher than in men (8·6%, 9·3%, 3·6%, and 0·3%, respectively). Findings for ethnicity were unclear. Lifetime prevalence of IPV was higher in those living in rented accommodation or deprived neighbourhoods. Among people who had attempted suicide in the past year, 49·7% had ever experienced IPV and 23·1% had experienced IPV in the past year (including 34·8% of women and 9·4% of men). After adjusting for demographics, socioeconomics, and lifetime experience of adversities, the odds ratio of a past-year suicide attempt were 2·82 (95% CI 1·54-5·17) times higher in those who have ever experienced IPV, compared with those who had not. Fully adjusted odds ratios for past-year self-harm (2·20, 95% CI 1·37-3·53) and suicidal thoughts (1·85, 1·39-2·46) were also raised in those who had ever experienced IPV.InterpretationIPV is common in England, especially among women, and is strongly associated with self-harm and suicidality. People presenting to services in suicidal distress or after self-harm should be asked about IPV. Interventions designed to reduce the prevalence and duration of IPV might protect and improve the lives of people at risk of self-harm and suicide.FundingUK Prevention Research Partnership.

Project description:Surveys indicate quite high prevalence of cancer worry in the general population, but little is known about what it is about cancer that worries people. A better understanding of the origins of cancer worry may help elucidate previously found inconsistencies in its behavioural effect on cancer prevention, screening uptake, and help-seeking for symptoms. In this study, we explore the prevalence and population distribution of general cancer worry and worries about specific aspects of cancer previously identified.A population-based survey of 2048 English adults (18-70 years, April-May 2016), using face-to-face interviews to assess demographic characteristics, general cancer worry and twelve sources of cancer worry (adapted from an existing scale), including the emotional, physical, and social consequences of a diagnosis.In general, a third of respondents (37%) never worried about cancer, 57% worried occasionally/sometimes, and 6% often/very often. In terms of specific worries, two thirds would be 'quite a bit' or 'extremely' worried about the threat to life and emotional upset a diagnosis would cause. Half would worry about surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and loss of control over life. Worries about the social consequences were less commonly anticipated: just under half would worry about financial problems or their social roles, and a quarter would be worried about effects on identity, important relationships, gender role, and sexuality. Women and younger people reported more frequent worry about getting cancer, and would be more worried about the emotional, physical, and social consequences of a cancer diagnosis (p?<?.001). Those from ethnic minority backgrounds reported less frequent worry about getting cancer than their white counterparts, but would be equally worried about the emotional and physical impact of a cancer diagnosis, and worried more about the social consequences of a cancer diagnosis (p?<?.05).The majority of English adults worry at least occasionally about getting cancer, and would be most worried about the emotional and physical impact of a cancer diagnosis. Distinguishing between the various worries that cancer can evoke may help inform efforts to allay undue worries in those who are deterred by them from engaging with cancer prevention and early detection.

Project description:IntroductionE-cigarettes (ECs) may benefit smokers with mental health conditions who are more likely to smoke, and smoke more heavily, than those without mental health conditions. This could be undermined if harm misperceptions in this group are high as is the case in the general population. This study aimed to assess EC harm perceptions relative to cigarettes as a function of mental health status and a variety of characteristics.MethodsData were collected from 6531 current smokers in 2016/2017 in household surveys of representative samples of adults. The associations of mental health status (self-reported mental health condition and past year treatment), smoking and EC use characteristics, and characteristics relating to use of potential information sources with harm perceptions of ECs relative to cigarettes (measured by correct response "less harmful" vs. wrong responses "more harmful," "equally harmful," "don't know") were analyzed with logistic regression.ResultsA similar proportion of smokers without mental health conditions (61.5%, 95% CI 60.1-62.9) and with mental health conditions (both with [61.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 58.7-63.8] and without past year treatment [61.5%, 95% CI 58.1-64.7]) held inaccurate EC harm perceptions (all P > 0.05). Being female, nonwhite, aged 25-34 compared with 16-24, from lower social grades (C2, D, and E), not having post-16 qualifications, no EC experience, a daily smoker, unmotivated to quit <1 month, non-internet user and non-broadsheet reader were all associated with more inaccurate harm perceptions (all p < .05).ConclusionsThe majority of smokers in England have inaccurate harm perceptions of ECs regardless of mental health status.ImplicationsThis study is the first to use a nationally representative sample in order to investigate whether smokers with and without mental health conditions differ with regard to harm perceptions of ECs. Findings show that the majority of smokers in England hold inaccurate harm perceptions of ECs, and this does not differ as a function of mental health status. A number of characteristics associated with disadvantaged groups were significantly associated with inaccurate harm perceptions. These findings highlight the need to improve awareness and understanding among disadvantaged groups regarding the relative harms of ECs compared with tobacco.

Project description:BackgroundCancer-related stigma attracts considerable research interest, but few studies have examined stigmatisation in the healthy population. Qualitative studies suggest that stigma can discourage people from attending cancer screening. We aimed to quantify the prevalence and socio-demographic patterning of cancer stigma in the general population and to explore its association with cancer screening attendance.MethodsIn 2016, 1916 adults aged 18-70?years took part in home-based interviews in England. Measures assessed demographic characteristics, self-reported screening uptake for cervical (n?=?681), breast (n?=?326) and colorectal cancer (n?=?371), and cancer stigma. Cancer stigma was measured with the validated Cancer Stigma Scale which assesses six subdomains (Severity, Personal Responsibility, Awkwardness, Avoidance, Policy Opposition, and Financial Discrimination), from which a mean score was calculated. Logistic regression analyses examined the association between cancer stigma and having been screened as recommended versus not.ResultsLevels of cancer stigma were low, but varied across the six subdomains. Items regarding the severity of a cancer diagnosis attracted the highest levels of agreement (30-51%), followed by statements about the acceptability of making financial decisions on the basis of a cancer diagnosis such as allowing banks to refuse a mortgage (16-31%) and policy opposition statements such as not having a responsibility to provide the best possible care for cancer patients (10-17%). A similar proportion anticipated feeling awkward around someone with cancer (10-17%). Only 8-11% agreed with personal responsibility statements, such as that a person with cancer is to blame for their condition, while 4-5% of adults anticipated avoiding someone with cancer. Stigma was significantly higher in men (p?<?.05) and in those from ethnic minority backgrounds (p?<?.001). Higher cancer stigma was associated with not being screened as recommended for all three screening programmes (cervical: adjusted OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.15-2.20; breast: adjusted OR?=?1.97, 95% CI 1.17-3.32; colorectal: adjusted OR?=?1.59, 95% CI 1.06-2.38).ConclusionsCancer stigma is generally low, but some aspects of stigma are more prevalent than others. Stigma is more prevalent in certain population subgroups and is negatively associated with cancer screening uptake. These benchmark findings may help track and reduce cancer stigma over time.

Dataset Information

Deconstructing the Alcohol Harm Paradox: A Population Based Survey of Adults in England.

Background

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Deconstructing the Alcohol Harm Paradox: A Population Based Survey of Adults in England.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets