Characterization of Problematic Alcohol Use Among Physicians: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Problematic alcohol use in physicians poses a serious concern to physicians' health and their ability to provide care. Understanding the extent and characteristics of physicians with problematic alcohol use will help inform interventions. Objective: To estimate the extent of problematic alcohol use in physicians and how it differs by physician sex, age, medical specialty, and career stage (eg, residency vs practicing physician). Evidence Review: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) 2020-compliant systematic review, searching Medline, Embase, and PsychInfo from January 2006 to March 2020. Search terms included Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords related to physicians as the population and problematic alcohol use as the primary outcome. The quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We included articles where problematic alcohol use was measured by a validated tool (ie, Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test [AUDIT], AUDIT Version C [AUDIT-C], or CAGE [Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye-opener] questionnaire) in practicing physicians (ie, residents, fellows, or staff physicians). Findings: Thirty-one studies involving 51 680 participants in 17 countries published between January 2006 and March 2020 were included. All study designs were cross-sectional, self-reported surveys. Problematic alcohol use varied widely regardless of measurement method (0 to 34% with AUDIT; 9% to 35% with AUDIT-C; 4% to 22% with CAGE). Reported problematic alcohol use increased over time from 16.3% in 2006 to 2010 to 26.8% in 2017 to 2020. The extent of problematic use by sex was examined in 19 studies, by age in 12 studies, by specialty in 7 studies, and by career stage in 5 studies. Seven of 19 studies (37%) identified that problematic alcohol use was more common in males than females. Based on the wide heterogeneity of methods for included studies, limited conclusions can be made on how problematic alcohol use varies based on physician age, sex, specialty, and career stage. Conclusions and Relevance: Studies about problematic alcohol use in physicians demonstrate a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of methods of measurement, definitions for problematic alcohol use, and cohorts assessed. Most studies are primarily self-reported, precluding the ability to determine the true prevalence among the profession. Few studies provide relevant comparisons to aid in identifying key risk groups for targeted interventions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".