Prevalence and Patterns of Prenatal Alcohol Exposure in Australian Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies: A Systematic Review of Data Collection Approaches

This study sought to determine data collection approaches in Australian cohort studies and explore the potential impact on reported prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) prevalence and patterns. Inclusion criteria were that studies related to a general Australian antenatal population where PAE was assessed and reported. Studies were excluded if they were not peer reviewed, examined the prevalence of PAE in pregnancies complicated by alcohol-use disorders, or were published in a language other than English. A systematic search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus) was conducted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. Results were synthesised using MetaXL. Data from 16 separate birth cohorts (n = 78 articles) were included. Included cohorts were either general cohorts that included alcohol as a variable or alcohol-focused cohorts that were designed with a primary focus on PAE. PAE prevalence was estimated as 48% (95% CI: 38 to 57%). When subgroup analysis was performed, estimates of PAE prevalence when self-administered surveys and interviews were used for data collection were 53% (95% CI: 41% to 64%) and 43% (95% CI: 28% to 59%), respectively. Use of trained assessors was an influencing factor of the prevalence estimates when data were collected via interview. Alcohol-focused studies reported higher prevalence of PAE, regardless of method of survey administration. Where interviewer training is not possible, self-administered questionnaires will likely provide the most reliable PAE estimates. No funding sources are relevant to mention. Review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020204853).

Automated summary

This study aimed to determine data collection approaches in Australian cohort studies and explore their potential impact on reported prenatal alcohol exposure prevalence and patterns. The study found that different data collection methods can influence the estimates of prevalence.