4.1 Article

Alcohol Dependence, Consumption of Alcoholic Energy Drinks and Associated Work Characteristics in the Taiwan Working Population

Journal

ALCOHOL AND ALCOHOLISM
Volume 47, Issue 4, Pages 372-379

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/alcalc/ags034

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
  2. Council of Labour Affairs
  3. National Science Council, Taiwan [NSC-99-2410-H002-171-MY3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: To examine the association between work characteristics and the risk of alcohol dependence across different employment types and occupations, including the pattern of alcohol consumption in the form of energy drinks and its association with alcohol dependence. Methods: A total of 13,501 men and 8584 women participated in a national survey in Taiwan. Alcohol dependence was defined as >= 2 points in the CAGE questionnaire. A self-administered questionnaire recorded drinking behaviors, consumption of alcoholic energy drinks, employment type, occupation and a number of psychosocial work stressors, namely job demands, job control, employment security and workplace justice. Results: Of the total, 9.4% of men and 0.8% of women were CAGE-positive, and 6.0% of men and 0.7% of women regularly consumed alcoholic energy drinks. In male and female regular consumers of alcoholic energy drinks, 38.7 and 23.3%, respectively, were alcohol-dependent. Multivariate regression analyses showed that male employees in manual skilled occupations, with lower workplace justice, having weekly working hours < 40 h and on piece-rated or time-based pay systems were at higher risks of alcohol dependence. Conclusion: Certain occupational groups and workers with adverse psychosocial work characteristics should be targets for prevention of alcohol dependence. Alcoholic energy drink consumption should be taken into consideration while studying alcohol dependence in the work population in Taiwan.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available