Associations between heavy episodic drinking and alcohol related injuries: a case control study

BMC Public Health

Per Trygve Normann¹  Øivind Ekeberg²  Stig Tore Bogstrand³  Ingeborg Rossow⁴ 

[1] Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Division of Forensic Medicine and Drug Abuse Research, PO Box 4404, Nydalen, Oslo N-0403, Norway;Department of Behavioural Sciences in Medicine, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway;Lovisenberg University College, Lovisenberggt. 15b, Oslo 0456, Norway;Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research, POB 565 Sentrum, Oslo N-0105, Norway

关键词: Prevention paradox;    Case control study;    Violence;    Accidents;    Injuries;    Heavy episodic drinking;    Alcohol;   

Others  :  1161551
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-1076

 received in 2013-05-08, accepted in 2013-11-11,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Alcohol is a significant risk factor for injuries. This study addresses 1) whether the risk of alcohol related injury increases with frequency of heavy episodic drinking (HED) in a linear fashion, and 2) whether a small group of high risk drinkers accounts for the majority of alcohol related injuries.

Methods

We applied a case – control design. Cases were BAC positive injured patients (n = 534) and controls were respondents to a general population survey in Norway (n = 1947). Age and gender adjusted association between self-reported past year HED frequency and alcohol related injury risk was estimated in logistic regression models for all alcohol related injuries and for violence injuries and accident injuries separately.

Results

An increase in HED was associated with an increase in risk of alcohol related injury, resembling a linear risk function. The small fraction of high risk drinkers (6.6%) accounted for 41.6% of all alcohol related injuries, thus lending support to the validity of the prevention paradox.

Conclusion

There is a strong relationship between frequency of heavy episodic drinking and risk of alcohol related injuries, yet the majority of alcohol related injuries are found among drinkers who are not in the high risk group.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Rossow et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Borges G, Cherpitel CJ, Orozco R, Bond J, Ye Y, Macdonald S, Giesbrecht N, Stockwell T, Cremonte M, Moskalewicz J, et al.: Acute alcohol use and the risk of non-fatal injury in sixteen countries. Addiction 2006, 101(7):993-1002.
• [2]Rehm J, Mathers C, Popova S, Thavorncharoensap M, Teerawattananon Y, Patra J: Global burden of disease and injury and economic cost attributable to alcohol use and alcohol-use disorders. Lancet 2009, 373(9682):2223-2233.
• [3]Taylor B, Irving HM, Kanteres F, Room R, Borges G, Cherpitel C, Greenfield T, Rehm J: The more you drink, the harder you fall: a systematic review and meta-analysis of how acute alcohol consumption and injury or collision risk increase together. Drug Alcohol Depend 2010, 110(1–2):108-116.
• [4]Cherpitel CJ, Tam T, Midanik L, Caetano R, Greenfield T: Alcohol and non-fatal injury in the U.S. General population: a risk function analysis. Accid Anal Prev 1995, 27:651-661.
• [5]Rose G: Sick individuals and sick populations. Int J Epidemiol 2001, 30(3):427-432.
• [6]Rose G, Day S: The population mean predicts the number of deviant individuals. BMJ 1990, 301:1031-1034.
• [7]Skog O-J: The prevention paradox revisited. Addiction 1999, 94(5):751-757.
• [8]Gmel G, Klingemann S, Müller R, Brenner D: Revising the preventive paradox: the Swiss case. Addiction 2001, 96(2):273-284.
• [9]Stockwell T, Hawks D, Lang E, Rydon P: Unravelling the preventive paradox for acute alcohol problems. Drug Alcohol Rev 1996, 15(1):7-15.
• [10]Rossow I, Romelsjö A: The extent of the ‘prevention paradox’ in alcohol problems as a function of population drinking patterns. Addiction 2006, 101:84-90.
• [11]Spurling MC, Vinson DC: Alcohol-related injuries: evidence for the prevention paradox. Annals Fam Med 2005, 3(1):47-52.
• [12]Weitzman ER, Nelson TF: College student binge drinking and the ‘prevention paradox’: imnplkications for prevention and harm reduction. J Drug Educ 2004, 34(3):247-266.
• [13]Caetano R, Mills B, Pinsky I, Zaleski M, Laranjeira R: The distribution of alcohol consumption and the prevention paradox in Brazil. Addiction 2012, 107(1):60-68.
• [14]Danielsson A-K, Wennberg P, Hibell B, Romelsjö A: Alcohol use, heavy episodic drinking and subsequent problems among adolescents in 23 European countries: does the prevention paradox apply? Addiction 2012, 107(1):71-80.
• [15]Poikolainen K, Paljärvi T, Mäkelä P: Alcohol and the preventive paradox: serious harms and drinking patterns. Addiction 2007, 102(4):571-578.
• [16]Leifman H: Perspectives on alcohol prevention. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell International; 1996.
• [17]Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL: Case–control studies. In Modern epidemiology. Third edition. Edited by Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008:111-127.
• [18]Bogstrand ST, Normann PT, Rossow I, Larsen M, Mørland J, Ekeberg Ø: Prevalence of alcohol and other substances of abuse among injured patients in a Norwegian emergency department. Drug Alcohol Depend 2011, 117(2–3):132-138.
• [19]Kristoffersen L, Smith-Kielland A: An automated alcohol dehydrogenase method for ethanol quantification in urine and whole blood. J Anal Toxicol 2005, 29:387-389.
• [20]Bogstrand ST, Rossow I, Normann PT, Ekeberg Ø: Studying psychoactive substance use in injured patients: does exclusion of late arriving patients bias the results? Drug Alcohol Depend 2013, 127:187-192.
• [21]Movig KLL, Mathijssen MPM, Nagel PHA, van Egmond T, de Gier JJ, Leufkens HGM, Egberts ACG: Psychoactive substance use and the risk of motor vehicle accidents. Accid Anal Prev 2004, 36:631-636.
• [22]Simoni-Wastila L, Strickler G: Risk factors associated with problem use of prescription drugs. Am J Public Health 2004, 94:266-268.
• [23]Ilomäki J, Gnjidic D, Hilmer SN, Le Couteur DG, Naganathan V, Cumming RG, Waite LM, Seibel MJ, Blyth FM, Handelsman DJ: Psychotropic drug use and alcohol drinking in community-dwelling older Australian men: the CHAMP study. Drug Alcohol Rev 2013, 32:218-222.
• [24]Dawson DA, Li T-K, Grant BF: A prospective study of risk drinking: at risk for what? Drug Alcohol Depend 2008, 95:62-72.
• [25]Babor T, Caetano R, Casswell S, Edwards G, Giesbrecht N, Graham K, Grube J, Hill L, Holder H, Homel R, et al.: Alcohol: no ordinary commodity. Research and public policy. Second edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
• [26]Anderson P, Chisholm D, Fuhr DC: Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of policies and programmes to reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Lancet 2009, 373(9682):2234-2246.
• [27]Room R, Babor T, Rehm J: Alcohol and public health. Lancet 2005, 365(9458):519-530.
• [28]Wallin E: Responsible beverage service. Effects of a community action project. Stockholm: Stockholm University; 2004.
• [29]Wallin E, Norström T, Andreasson S: Alcohol prevention targeting licensed premises: a study of effects on violence. J Stud Alcohol 2003, 64(2):270-277.
• [30]Bertholet N: DJWVFMBB: reduction of alcohol consumption by brief alcohol intervention in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med 2005, 165(9):986-995.
• [31]Babor TF, McRee BG, Kassebaum PA, Grimaldi PL, Ahmed K, Bray J: Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT). Subst Abus 2007, 28(3):7-30.
• [32]Bernstein E, Boudreaux ED, Aseltine RH Jr: The impact of screening, brief intervention and referral for treatment in emergency department patients’ alcohol use: a 3-, 6-and 12-month follow-up. Alcohol Alcohol 2010, 45(6):514-519.
• [33]Havard A, Shakeshaft A, Sanson-Fisher R: Systematic review and meta‒analyses of strategies targeting alcohol problems in emergency departments: interventions reduce alcohol‒related injuries. Addiction 2008, 103(3):368-376.
• [34]Clark BJ, Moss M: Secondary prevention in the intensive care unit: does ICU admission represent a “teachable moment?”. Crit Care Med 2011, 39(6):1500-1506.