Patterns of remission from alcohol dependence in the United Kingdom: results from an online panel general population survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research has demonstrated that remissions from alcohol use disorders can occur without accessing treatment. The current study explored the prevalence of such untreated remissions in the UK and further, examined the extent to which people who resolved an alcohol use disorder regarded themselves as ever, or currently, being in recovery. METHODS: Participants were recruited using the Prolific online platform. Participants who met criteria for lifetime alcohol dependence (ICD-10) were asked about their drinking at its heaviest, use of treatment services, whether they identified as being in recovery, and their current alcohol consumption (to identify those who were abstinent or drinking in a moderate fashion). RESULTS: A total of 3,994 participants completed surveys to identify 166 participants with lifetime alcohol dependence who were currently abstinent (n = 67) or drinking in a moderate fashion (n = 99). Participants who were currently abstinent were more likely to have accessed treatment than those who were currently moderate drinkers (44.4% versus 16.0%; Fischer's exact test = 0.001). Further, those who were abstinent were heavier drinkers prior to remission [Mean (SD) drinks per week = 53.6 (31.7) versus 29.1 (21.7); t-test = 5.6, 118.7 df, p < .001] and were more likely to have ever identified themselves as 'in recovery' (51.5% versus 18.9%; Fischer's exact test = 0.001) than current moderate drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: While participants with an abstinent remission were more likely than those currently drinking in a moderate fashion to have accessed treatment and to identify as being 'in recovery,' the majority of participants reduced their drinking without treatment (and did not regard themselves as in recovery).
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) | 0.000 | 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".