Social determinants of Health and Alcohol consumption in the UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Addressing the social determinants of health (SDH) and health inequities are essential for successfully combating alcohol-related harm. In U.K, excessive consumption of alcohol is a huge public health concern. An estimated 9 million adults drink at level that increase the risk of harm to their health; 1.6 million adults in England have some degree of alcohol dependence; and of these some 250,000 are believed to be moderately or severely dependent and may benefit from intensive specialist treatment. To be able to devise effective action, it is essential to comprehend these inequities in the healthcare system. Health inequities are not solely related to access to health care services; there are many other determinants related to living and working conditions, as well as the overall macro-policies prevailing in a country. The key intention of this review was to critically analyse the degree to which social determinants have impacted on excess alcohol consumption. A comprehensive approach to reduce inequities in alcohol-related harm requires action that includes mix of long- and short-term impacts, addressing the consequences and the root causes of inequities, and acting on both individuals and environments. Whereas, consequences of harmful alcohol use are more severe for those already experiencing social exclusion. We suggest that (1) the effective legislation, (2) modifying marketing strategies, (3) enhancing cooperation with regional organizations, (4) more effectively implementing existing regulation and (5) consulting expert will enhance SDH for this vulnerable population.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | high |
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".