In With the Old and Out With the New? A Comparison of the Old and New Binge Drinking Standards
In With the Old and Out With the New? A Comparison of the Old and New Binge Drinking Standards
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/acer.12514
复制
发表时间：
2014-10-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
O'Malley, Stephanie S.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Corbin, William R.;Zalewski, Suzanne;O'Malley, Stephanie S.
背景有一致的证据表明，男性每次饮酒5+(女性4+)的狂饮标准与负面后果的风险有关。然而，许多人质疑这一指标作为醉酒指数的充分性(例如，血液酒精浓度[BAC]为0.08g%)。为了回应这些担忧，美国国家酒精滥用和酒精中毒研究所的一个特别工作组建议在这一标准上增加一个24小时的时间限定符。虽然在概念上很有吸引力，但几乎没有人试图确定这一新的衡量标准是否更好地涵盖了导致负面后果的饮酒。方法：这项研究检查了新的酗酒标准(2小时)和旧的酗酒标准(没有时间限定符)与饮酒频率的关系，估计BAC为0.08g%，以及饮酒负面后果的经历。这些关系在参加减少饮酒的随机临床试验的成人社交饮酒样本(N=200)和大量饮酒的年轻人样本(N=168)中进行了检验。结果与添加时间限定符的目的相反，新的酗酒测量与饮酒并没有更强的相关性，相对于旧的饮酒测量，BAC估计为0.08g%。此外，当两种测量同时进入回归模型时，只有旧的酗酒测量解释了饮酒负面后果的显著差异。结论这些基于经验的结果表明，原始的酗酒标准没有时间限定符，可能比2小时标准作为风险标记更可取。研究结果还表明，需要进一步努力确定一种简单的措施，有效地捕捉饮酒对醉酒的影响以及相关的负面后果风险。
BackgroundThere is consistent evidence that the binge drinking standard of 5+ drinks per drinking occasion for men (4+ for women) is associated with risk for negative consequences. Yet, many have questioned the adequacy of this measure as an index of intoxication (e.g., a blood alcohol concentration [BAC] of 0.08g%). In response to these concerns, a National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism task force recommended adding a time qualifier of 2hours to this criterion. Although conceptually appealing, there has been little effort to determine whether this new measure better captures drinking that leads to negative consequences.MethodsThis study examined the new binge standard (2-hour period) and old binge standard (no time qualifier) in relation to frequency of drinking to an estimated BAC of 0.08g% and the experience of negative drinking consequences. These relations were examined within both a social drinking sample of adults (N=200) and a sample of heavy-drinking young adults (N=168) participating in a randomized clinical trial for drinking reduction.ResultsContrary to the purpose of adding a time qualifier, the new binge measure was not more strongly correlated with drinking to an estimated BAC of 0.08g% relative to the old binge measure. In addition, when both measures were entered simultaneously into a regression model, only the old binge measure accounted for significant variance in negative drinking consequences.ConclusionsThese empirically based results suggest that the original binge standard without a time qualifier may be preferable to the 2-hour standard as a marker for risk. The findings also suggest that further efforts are needed to identify a brief measure that effectively captures drinking to intoxication and related risk for negative consequences.