孕期酒精供应和酒驾政策与接受药物使用障碍治疗之间的关系。

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Pamela J Trangenstein, Nancy F Berglas, Meenakshi S Subbaraman, William C Kerr, Sarah Cm Roberts
{"title":"孕期酒精供应和酒驾政策与接受药物使用障碍治疗之间的关系。","authors":"Pamela J Trangenstein, Nancy F Berglas, Meenakshi S Subbaraman, William C Kerr, Sarah Cm Roberts","doi":"10.15288/jsad.23-00414","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Pregnancy-specific alcohol policies are widely adopted yet have limited effectiveness and established risks. It is unknown whether general population alcohol policies are effective during pregnancy. This study investigated associations between general population policies and alcohol treatment admission rates for pregnant people specifically.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Data are from the Treatment Episodes Data Set: Admissions and state-level policy data for 1992-2019 (n=1,331 state-years). The primary outcome was treatment admissions where alcohol was the primary substance, and the secondary outcome included admissions where alcohol was any substance. There were five policy predictors: 1) Government spirits monopoly, 2) Ban on Sunday sales, 3) Grocery store sales, 4) Gas station sales, and 5) Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) laws. Covariates included poverty, unemployment, per capita cigarette consumption, state and year fixed effects, and state-specific time trends.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In models with alcohol as the primary substance, prohibiting spirits sales in grocery stores (vs. allowing heavy beer and spirits) had lower treatment admission rates [<i>IRR</i>=0.88, 95% <i>CI</i>: 0.78-0.99, <i>p</i>=0.028]. States with BAC laws at 0.10% (vs. no law) had higher treatment admission rates [<i>IRR</i>=1.24, 95% <i>CI</i>: 1.08-1.43, <i>p</i>=0.003]. When alcohol was any substance, prohibiting spirits sales in grocery stores (vs. allowing heavy beer and spirits) was again associated with lower treatment admission rates [<i>IRR</i>=0.89, 95% <i>CI</i>: 0.80-0.98, <i>p</i>=0.021], but there was no association for BAC laws.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Restrictions on grocery store spirits sales and BAC laws were associated with lower and higher alcohol treatment admission rates among pregnant people, respectively, suggesting general population alcohol policies are relevant for pregnant people's treatment utilization.</p>","PeriodicalId":17159,"journal":{"name":"Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The relationship between alcohol availability and drink-driving policies and admissions to substance use disorder treatment during pregnancy.\",\"authors\":\"Pamela J Trangenstein, Nancy F Berglas, Meenakshi S Subbaraman, William C Kerr, Sarah Cm Roberts\",\"doi\":\"10.15288/jsad.23-00414\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Pregnancy-specific alcohol policies are widely adopted yet have limited effectiveness and established risks. It is unknown whether general population alcohol policies are effective during pregnancy. This study investigated associations between general population policies and alcohol treatment admission rates for pregnant people specifically.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Data are from the Treatment Episodes Data Set: Admissions and state-level policy data for 1992-2019 (n=1,331 state-years). The primary outcome was treatment admissions where alcohol was the primary substance, and the secondary outcome included admissions where alcohol was any substance. There were five policy predictors: 1) Government spirits monopoly, 2) Ban on Sunday sales, 3) Grocery store sales, 4) Gas station sales, and 5) Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) laws. Covariates included poverty, unemployment, per capita cigarette consumption, state and year fixed effects, and state-specific time trends.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In models with alcohol as the primary substance, prohibiting spirits sales in grocery stores (vs. allowing heavy beer and spirits) had lower treatment admission rates [<i>IRR</i>=0.88, 95% <i>CI</i>: 0.78-0.99, <i>p</i>=0.028]. States with BAC laws at 0.10% (vs. no law) had higher treatment admission rates [<i>IRR</i>=1.24, 95% <i>CI</i>: 1.08-1.43, <i>p</i>=0.003]. When alcohol was any substance, prohibiting spirits sales in grocery stores (vs. allowing heavy beer and spirits) was again associated with lower treatment admission rates [<i>IRR</i>=0.89, 95% <i>CI</i>: 0.80-0.98, <i>p</i>=0.021], but there was no association for BAC laws.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Restrictions on grocery store spirits sales and BAC laws were associated with lower and higher alcohol treatment admission rates among pregnant people, respectively, suggesting general population alcohol policies are relevant for pregnant people's treatment utilization.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17159,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.23-00414\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of studies on alcohol and drugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.23-00414","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:针对孕妇的酒精政策已被广泛采用,但其效果有限,且存在既定风险。目前尚不清楚普通人群饮酒政策在孕期是否有效。本研究调查了普通人群政策与孕妇酒精治疗入院率之间的关系:数据来自治疗事件数据集:1992-2019(n=1,331 州年)的入院治疗和州一级政策数据。主要结果是以酒精为主要物质的入院治疗情况,次要结果包括以酒精为任何物质的入院治疗情况。有五个政策预测因素:1)政府对烈酒的垄断;2)禁止周日销售;3)杂货店销售;4)加油站销售;5)血液酒精浓度(BAC)法律。协变量包括贫困率、失业率、人均香烟消费量、州和年份固定效应以及各州的时间趋势:结果:在以酒精为主要物质的模型中,禁止在杂货店销售烈性酒(与允许销售烈性啤酒和烈性酒相比)的治疗入院率较低[IRR=0.88,95% CI:0.78-0.99,p=0.028]。酒精浓度为 0.10%(与不允许)的州的入院治疗率更高[IRR=1.24,95% CI:1.08-1.43,p=0.003]。当酒精为任何物质时,禁止在杂货店销售烈性酒(与允许销售烈性啤酒和烈性酒相比)与较低的治疗入院率再次相关[IRR=0.89,95% CI:0.80-0.98,p=0.021],但与 BAC 法律没有关联:结论:对杂货店烈酒销售的限制和酒精浓度法分别与孕妇较低和较高的酒精治疗入院率有关,这表明普通人群的酒精政策与孕妇的治疗利用率有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The relationship between alcohol availability and drink-driving policies and admissions to substance use disorder treatment during pregnancy.

Objective: Pregnancy-specific alcohol policies are widely adopted yet have limited effectiveness and established risks. It is unknown whether general population alcohol policies are effective during pregnancy. This study investigated associations between general population policies and alcohol treatment admission rates for pregnant people specifically.

Method: Data are from the Treatment Episodes Data Set: Admissions and state-level policy data for 1992-2019 (n=1,331 state-years). The primary outcome was treatment admissions where alcohol was the primary substance, and the secondary outcome included admissions where alcohol was any substance. There were five policy predictors: 1) Government spirits monopoly, 2) Ban on Sunday sales, 3) Grocery store sales, 4) Gas station sales, and 5) Blood alcohol concentration (BAC) laws. Covariates included poverty, unemployment, per capita cigarette consumption, state and year fixed effects, and state-specific time trends.

Results: In models with alcohol as the primary substance, prohibiting spirits sales in grocery stores (vs. allowing heavy beer and spirits) had lower treatment admission rates [IRR=0.88, 95% CI: 0.78-0.99, p=0.028]. States with BAC laws at 0.10% (vs. no law) had higher treatment admission rates [IRR=1.24, 95% CI: 1.08-1.43, p=0.003]. When alcohol was any substance, prohibiting spirits sales in grocery stores (vs. allowing heavy beer and spirits) was again associated with lower treatment admission rates [IRR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.80-0.98, p=0.021], but there was no association for BAC laws.

Conclusions: Restrictions on grocery store spirits sales and BAC laws were associated with lower and higher alcohol treatment admission rates among pregnant people, respectively, suggesting general population alcohol policies are relevant for pregnant people's treatment utilization.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
224
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs began in 1940 as the Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol. It was founded by Howard W. Haggard, M.D., director of Yale University’s Laboratory of Applied Physiology. Dr. Haggard was a physiologist studying the effects of alcohol on the body, and he started the Journal as a way to publish the increasing amount of research on alcohol use, abuse, and treatment that emerged from Yale and other institutions in the years following the repeal of Prohibition in 1933. In addition to original research, the Journal also published abstracts summarizing other published documents dealing with alcohol. At Yale, Dr. Haggard built a large team of alcohol researchers within the Laboratory of Applied Physiology—including E.M. Jellinek, who became managing editor of the Journal in 1941. In 1943, to bring together the various alcohol research projects conducted by the Laboratory, Dr. Haggard formed the Section of Studies on Alcohol, which also became home to the Journal and its editorial staff. In 1950, the Section was renamed the Center of Alcohol Studies.
×
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