4.6 Article

The collectivity of changes in alcohol consumption revisited

期刊

ADDICTION
卷 109, 期 9, 页码 1447-1455

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/add.12520

关键词

Collective displacement; heavy drinking; mean consumption; population drinking; repeated cross-sectional; theory

资金

  1. Norwegian Institute for Alcohol and Drug Research
  2. National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL)
  3. Academy of Finland [137685]
  4. US National Institutes of Health (NIAAA) [P50-AA005595]
  5. Academy of Finland (AKA) [137685] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Within-country temporal changes in alcohol consumption in the United States, Finland and Norway were examined to assess (i) whether a change in mean alcohol consumption is accompanied by a change in the prevalence of heavy drinkers, (ii) whether this mean change reflects a collective displacement in the whole distribution of consumption and (iii) whether collective displacement is found for both an upward and a downward shift in mean consumption. Methods We applied repeated cross-sectional survey data on distribution measures for estimated annual alcohol consumption from national population sample surveys covering 30-40-year periods in two countries with increasing trends in mean consumption (Finland and Norway) and one country with decreasing trends (the United States). Results There was a strong positive association (P < 0.001) between changes in mean consumption and changes in the prevalence of heavy drinkers in all three countries. Moreover, a change in mean consumption was accompanied by a consumption change in the same direction in all consumer categories in all three countries, i. e. a collective displacement. The regression coefficients were approximately 1. Conclusions Drinkers at all levels of consumption appear to move in concert, both up and down the consumption scale, in Finland, Norway and the United States, as predicted by Skog's theory of the collectivity of drinking cultures.

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

4.6
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