Trends in binge drinking in Canada from 1996 to 2013: a repeated cross-sectional analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Heavy drinking is a major factor in morbidity and mortality worldwide. Little information is available on trends in Canada regarding alcohol abuse. We sought to estimate abstinence, binge drinking and alcohol intake exceeding low-risk drinking guidelines in the Canadian population from 1996 to 2013. METHODS: The data sources for this analysis were a series of cross-sectional national health surveys of the Canadian population carried out by Statistics Canada between 1996 and 2013. These were cross-sectional files from the National Population Health Surveys of 1996 and 1998, plus the Canadian Community Health Surveys from 2000 to 2013. Respondents were aged 18 years and older. RESULTS: The proportion of binge drinkers increased steadily from 13.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 13.2%-14.2%) in 1996 to 19.7% (95% CI 19.1%-20.3%) in 2013. The corresponding proportions for men were 20.8% (95% CI 19.9%-21.7%) in 1996, and 25.7% (95% CI 24.7%-26.6%) in 2013; for women, these proportions were 6.9% (95% CI 6.4%-7.5%) in 1996, and 13.8% (95% CI 13.1%-14.5%) in 2013. No significant increases were seen in the proportion of people who exceeded low-risk drinking guidelines or of abstainers during the same period. INTERPRETATION: The rate of self-reported binge drinking in Canada has increased from 1996 to 2013, relatively more so among women than among men. No evidence of an increase in the proportion of people exceeding low-risk drinking guidelines or of abstainers was seen during the same period. These results suggest that binge drinking is of particular concern regarding intervention strategies aimed at improvement of public health.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".