[The influence of regional differences in drinking style on hazardous use, excessive drinking, abuse and dependence].

INTRODUCTION

Previous research in Germany identified a "north-south" gradient in the hazardous use of alcoholic drinks, but this had methodological limitations. The present study estimates the hazardous use of alcohol more reliably. In addition, regional differences in drinking style and their relation to indicators of problematic alcohol use are examined.

METHODS

Data are from 1995 and 1997 representative samples of the non-institutionalised German general population aged 18 to 59 years. Based on 15,017 complete observations prevalence rates for abstinence, hazardous consumption (>30 g ethanol per day for men; >20 g ethanol per day for women), two or more CAGE-symptoms, and heavy episodic drinking (5+ drinks consumed in a day) were calculated and a cluster analysis was performed with regard to the 16 German federal states.

RESULTS

Regional differences exist in the prevalence of abstinence and hazardous drinking, but a "north-south" gradient was not evident. However, cluster analysis results suggest a "north-south" difference in drinking style, i.e. the quantity-frequency pattern of beer, wine, and spirits consumption. Compared with the northern German federal states, those in the south experienced more beer and less wine and spirits consumption in combination with a lower frequency of drinking beer and spirits. No cluster difference was found for hazardous drinking, lifetime prevalence of 2+ CAGE items or consumption of 5+ drinks in a day. Yet, mean consumption of ethanol was significantly higher in the north.

CONCLUSIONS

Research suggesting more hazardous consumption in southern Germany must be tempered by these findings that found no 'north-south' gradient in several different indicators of problematic alcohol use. Different drinking styles in northern and southern states do not result in differences concerning prevalence of binge drinking nor alcohol-related problems. Drinking style only made a difference in the mean consumption of ethanol. Methodological differences between the reported studies are discussed.