An alternative to standard drinks as a measure of alcohol consumption

Lee Ann Kaskutas, Karen Graves
{"title":"An alternative to standard drinks as a measure of alcohol consumption","authors":"Lee Ann Kaskutas,&nbsp;Karen Graves","doi":"10.1016/S0899-3289(00)00042-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>Despite the field's longstanding concern with underreporting of alcohol consumption, traditional survey questions encourage error because respondents often must calculate their number of drinks based on standard drink sizes that often do not match their own drinking style. This study considered how often respondents' self-defined drink sizes matched a ‘standard’ drink size based on approximately 12 g of ethanol for six different beverages. We also studied whether respondents could accurately judge the size of their drinks. Subjects were recruited and interviewed at urban prenatal clinics, health clinics, and via snowball referrals and community outreach in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. Because of the urgency of accurate measurement of consumption during pregnancy, urban pregnant women from the groups most at risk for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Native Americans (</span><em>n</em>=102) and African Americans (185), were targeted. A small comparison group of urban pregnant white women (<em>n</em><span>=34) was included. One-hour in-person interviews were conducted. Self-defined drink sizes were determined for each beverage consumed, using models and photographs of vessels. Frequent drinkers and the majority of women who reported drinking higher alcohol content beverages reported drinking larger-than-standard drink sizes. The median size of a malt liquor drink among the daily drinkers was almost three times as large as the standard, their fortified wine drinks were four times the standard, and their spirits drinks were six times the standard size. The majority of drinkers of each beverage were unable to accurately judge the size of their drinks, underestimating the number of fluid ounces by about 30%. Although the vessels methodology used here must be refined and tested further on other populations (e.g., men, nonpregnant women, and all ethnic groups), results suggest that determination of risk levels should be based on survey data that takes into consideration the beverage mix and the actual size of respondents' alcohol drinks.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":73959,"journal":{"name":"Journal of substance abuse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/S0899-3289(00)00042-0","citationCount":"104","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of substance abuse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0899328900000420","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 104

Abstract

Despite the field's longstanding concern with underreporting of alcohol consumption, traditional survey questions encourage error because respondents often must calculate their number of drinks based on standard drink sizes that often do not match their own drinking style. This study considered how often respondents' self-defined drink sizes matched a ‘standard’ drink size based on approximately 12 g of ethanol for six different beverages. We also studied whether respondents could accurately judge the size of their drinks. Subjects were recruited and interviewed at urban prenatal clinics, health clinics, and via snowball referrals and community outreach in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area. Because of the urgency of accurate measurement of consumption during pregnancy, urban pregnant women from the groups most at risk for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Native Americans (n=102) and African Americans (185), were targeted. A small comparison group of urban pregnant white women (n=34) was included. One-hour in-person interviews were conducted. Self-defined drink sizes were determined for each beverage consumed, using models and photographs of vessels. Frequent drinkers and the majority of women who reported drinking higher alcohol content beverages reported drinking larger-than-standard drink sizes. The median size of a malt liquor drink among the daily drinkers was almost three times as large as the standard, their fortified wine drinks were four times the standard, and their spirits drinks were six times the standard size. The majority of drinkers of each beverage were unable to accurately judge the size of their drinks, underestimating the number of fluid ounces by about 30%. Although the vessels methodology used here must be refined and tested further on other populations (e.g., men, nonpregnant women, and all ethnic groups), results suggest that determination of risk levels should be based on survey data that takes into consideration the beverage mix and the actual size of respondents' alcohol drinks.

一种替代标准饮酒量的方法,作为酒精消耗量的衡量标准
尽管该领域长期以来一直关注少报酒精消费量,但传统的调查问题鼓励出错,因为受访者经常必须根据标准饮料大小计算他们的饮料数量,而标准饮料大小往往与他们自己的饮酒风格不符。这项研究考虑了受访者自我定义的饮料尺寸与六种不同饮料的“标准”饮料尺寸相匹配的频率,该尺寸基于大约12克乙醇。我们还研究了受访者是否能准确判断他们饮料的大小。在洛杉矶和旧金山湾区的城市产前诊所、健康诊所、滚雪球转诊和社区外展中招募和采访了受试者。由于迫切需要准确测量怀孕期间的酒精摄入量,来自胎儿酒精综合征风险最高群体的城市孕妇,印第安人(n=102)和非洲裔美国人(185)成为研究对象。其中包括一组城市白人孕妇(n=34)。进行了一小时的面对面访谈。使用容器的模型和照片来确定每种饮料的自定义饮料大小。经常饮酒者和大多数报告饮用酒精含量较高的饮料的女性报告饮用的饮料比标准饮料大。每天饮用麦芽酒饮料的中位数几乎是标准的三倍,他们的强化葡萄酒饮料是标准的四倍,他们的烈酒饮料是标准的六倍。每种饮料的大多数饮用者都无法准确判断他们饮料的大小,低估了大约30%的液盎司数。虽然这里使用的容器方法必须加以改进,并在其他人群(例如,男性、非孕妇和所有种族)中进行进一步测试,但结果表明,风险水平的确定应基于考虑饮料混合和受访者酒精饮料实际大小的调查数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信