Drinking in context: the influence of gender and neighbourhood deprivation on alcohol consumption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Findings from contextual studies have shown that living in both poor and affluent neighbourhoods increases the risk of drinking and drug use, but few studies have examined the connection between neighbourhood context and drinking from a gender perspective. METHODS: We investigated the association between gender, neighbourhood deprivation and weekly drinking behaviour (number of drinks) in a national sample of 93 457 Canadians using multilevel zero-inflated Poisson regression. A cross-level interaction between gender and neighbourhood deprivation was examined while controlling for other potential risk factors. RESULTS: 53% of Canadians reported having at least one drink in the last year (men=61%; women=46%). Among respondents who were drinkers, the average number of drinks per week was 6.4 with male drinkers reporting an average of 7.9 and female drinkers reporting an average of 4.6. Neighbourhood material deprivation was independently associated with weekly drinking. Findings from multilevel analysis showed a u-shaped curve between neighbourhood deprivation and drinking, but only for men. Men living in the poorest neighbourhoods drank more weekly (8.5 drinks) than men living in neighbourhoods of wealthy (4.5 drinks) and mid-range deprivation (3.7 drinks). No difference in drinking by neighbourhood material deprivation was observed among women. CONCLUSION: Men, like women, experience gender-specific health difficulties (eg, alcohol-related problems) suggesting the need for a gendered focus on policies and services related to women's and men's health. The challenge for public health and primary care is to work together to target risk-taking behaviours among men through treatment, prevention and cultural/educational messages aimed at building healthy lifestyles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".