4.5 Article

Trajectories of alcohol use in the UK military and associations with mental health

期刊

ADDICTIVE BEHAVIORS
卷 75, 期 -, 页码 130-137

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.07.010

关键词

Alcohol use; Trajectories; Military; Cohort study

资金

  1. UK Ministry of Defence (MoD)
  2. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London
  3. Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  4. Kings College London

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: There are higher levels of alcohol misuse in the military compared to the general population. Yet there is a dearth of research in military populations on the longitudinal patterns of alcohol use. This study aims to identify group trajectories of alcohol consumption in the UK military and to identify associations with childhood adversity, deployment history and mental disorder; Methods: Data on weekly alcohol consumption across an eight year period and three phases of a UK military cohort study (n = 667) were examined using growth mixture modelling. Results: Five alcohol trajectory classes were identified: mid-average drinkers (55%), abstainers (4%), low level drinkers (19%), decreasing drinkers (3%) and heavy drinkers (19%). Alcohol consumption remained stable over the three periods in all classes, other than in the small decreasing trajectory class. Individuals in the heavy drinking class were more likely to have deployed to Iraq. Abstainers and heavy drinkers were more likely to report post-traumatic stress disorders at baseline compared to average drinkers. Conclusions: Heavy drinkers in the UK military did not change their drinking pattern over a period of eight years. This highlights the need to develop effective preventive programmes to lessen the physical and psychological consequences of long-term heavy alcohol use. Individuals with a mental health problem appeared more likely to either be drinking at a high level or to be abstaining from use.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据