Has There Been an Increase in the Frequency with which People who Drink in a Risky Fashion Receive Advice to Cut down on their Drinking from 1998 to 2015?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To assess whether there has been an increase over time in the proportion of people who drink in a risky fashion, who receive expressions of concern about their drinking or advice to cut down. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) Monitor population survey, conducted annually in Ontario (participants: 18 or older) and with relevant data available from 1998 to 2015 (N = 48,124). The proportions of participants who drank above weekly low-risk drinking levels (approximated as 15 or more drinks for males and 11 or more for females) who reported receiving expressions of concern about their drinking or advice to cut down were compared between the time periods 1998-2004, 2005-2010, and 2011-2015. Further, proportions were broken down by age group and participant sex. RESULTS: Overall, there were low rates of participants who reported receiving advice about their drinking (16.8% of those drinking above weekly drinking levels) and no evidence of an increase across time, except among males, 34 years and under. Females drinking beyond recommended weekly guidelines were less likely than males to receive advice (11.7% versus 19.3%, respectively; P < .001). Further, older participants drinking beyond weekly guidelines were less likely than younger participants to receive advice (18-34: 16.9%; 35-54: 20.3%; 55 or older: 12.9%; P = .012). CONCLUSIONS: Given that heavy alcohol consumption is a significant contributor to the preventable burden of disease, increased emphasis is merited on finding ways to increase the frequency with which people who drink in a risky fashion receive advice to cut down.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".