[Subjective well-being, morbidity and health care consumption by hazardous, harmful and problem alcohol drinkers].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this work was to investigate subjective well-being, morbidity and healthcare needs of persons with hazardous, harmful and problematic alcohol consumption. METHODS: Data from a questionnaire-based survey performed on a representative sample of 2221 persons (of these, 51.4% were men) aged 18 to 39 (average age 29.9, s.d. 5.8) were used for the analysis. The level of risk related to alcohol consumption was assessed through the screening questionnaire (the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test [AUDIT], and categorization into 4 groups with critical scores of 8, 16 and 20 was applied to the analysis. The questionnaire focussed on the respondents' drinking habits and health and their demographic, social, and psychological background and circumstances. RESULTS: The respondents' subjective assessment of their physical and mental health varied significantly across the different score categories in AUDIT. Over one-quarter of the respondents falling in the category of harmful or problem drinkers rated their physical and/or mental health as poor or very poor. Compared to no-problem alcohol users, problem drinkers sought special help for emotional problems more frequently (3.1% vs. 21.3%; p < 0.01); visited their doctors more frequently during the past year (3.1 vs. 4.8; p < 0.05); had more episodes of illness (1.4 vs. 6.8; p < 0.01), more days of sick leave (10.4 vs. 27.6; p < 0.01); and were hospitalized more frequently (6.9% vs. 18.7%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The results support/confirm the link between hazardous, harmful and problematic alcohol consumption on the one hand and the drinkers' perception of their health status and use of medical/healthcare services on the other hand. A modification of inappropriate consumption patterns through a short intervention by a general practitioner can lead to health improvement and reduction of the drinkers' healthcare costs.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".