Scoping review of assessment tools for, magnitudes of and factors associated with problem drinking in population-based studies
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The term "problem drinking" includes a spectrum of alcohol problems ranging from excessive or heavy drinking to alcohol use disorder. Problem drinking is a leading risk factor for death and disability globally. It has been measured and conceptualised in different ways, which has made it difficult to identify common risk factors for problem alcohol use. This scoping review aims to synthesise what is known about the assessment of problem drinking, its magnitude and associated factors. METHODS: Four databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Global Index Medicus) and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 25 November 2023. Studies were eligible if they focused on people aged 15 and above, were population-based studies reporting problem alcohol use and published in the English language. This review was reported based on guidelines from the 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist'. Critical appraisal was done using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: From the 14 296 records identified, 10 749 underwent title/abstract screening, of which 352 full-text articles were assessed, and 81 articles were included for data extraction. Included studies assessed alcohol use with self-report quantity/frequency questionnaires, criteria to determine risky single occasion drinking, validated screening tools, or structured clinical and diagnostic interviews. The most widely used screening tool was the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test. Studies defined problem drinking in various ways, including excessive/heavy drinking, binge drinking, alcohol use disorder, alcohol abuse and alcohol dependence. Across studies, the prevalence of heavy drinking ranged from <1.0% to 53.0%, binge drinking from 2.7% to 48.2%, alcohol abuse from 4.0% to 19.0%, alcohol dependence from 0.1% to 39.0% and alcohol use disorder from 2.0% to 66.6%. Factors associated with problem drinking varied across studies. These included sociodemographic and economic factors (age, sex, relationship status, education, employment, income level, religion, race, location and alcohol outlet density) and clinical factors (like medical problems, mental disorders, other substance use and quality of life). CONCLUSIONS: Due to differences in measurement, study designs and assessed risk factors, the prevalence of and factors associated with problem drinking varied widely across studies and settings. The alcohol field would benefit from harmonised measurements of alcohol use and problem drinking as this would allow for comparisons to be made across countries and for meta-analyses to be conducted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework ID: https://osf.io/2anj3.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,091 | 0,335 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,015 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,050 | 0,043 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».