Read Jennifer P, Beattie Melissa, Chamberlain Rebecca, Merrill Jennifer E
Department of Psychology, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Buffalo, NY, USA.
Addict Behav. 2008 Feb;33(2):225-34. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.09.001. Epub 2007 Sep 8.
Despite its ubiquity, the term "Binge" drinking has been controversial. Among other things, the grouping of drinkers into a single risk category based on a relatively low threshold may not capture adequately the nature of problem drinking behaviors. The present study is an initial examination of the utility of delineating heavy drinkers into three groups; those who typically drink below the traditional "Binge" cutoff (less than 4+/5+ drinks per occasion for women/men), those who met traditional "Binge" drinking criteria, and a higher "Binge" cutoff of 6+/7+ (women, men). We examined differences in drunkenness, drinking frequency, and unique types of alcohol problems. Participants (N=356; 184 women) were regularly drinking college students at a mid-sized U.S. university who completed a battery of self-report measures including a calendar of daily alcohol consumption, and the 8-domain Young Adult Alcohol Consequences Questionnaire (YAACQ). Estimated Blood Alcohol Levels (eBALs) were calculated. We found that the standard 4+/5+ drink "Binge" cutoff distinguishes drinkers across some but not all indices of alcohol involvement. "Binge" drinkers differed from their "Non-Binge" counterparts on eBAL, but for other indicators (drinking frequency, total alcohol consequences), only "Heavy Binge" drinkers differed significantly from "Non-Binge" drinkers. Importantly, "Heavy Binge" drinkers experienced higher levels of those specific consequences associated with more problematic alcohol involvement. Findings suggest that not all "Binge" drinkers drink alike, are equally drunk, or experience similar consequences. As such, there may be utility in distinguishing among heavy drinkers, in order to focus appropriately on those at greatest risk for different types of consequences.
尽管“狂饮”一词无处不在,但一直存在争议。除其他因素外,基于相对较低的阈值将饮酒者归为单一风险类别可能无法充分体现问题饮酒行为的本质。本研究初步考察了将重度饮酒者分为三组的效用;即那些通常饮酒量低于传统“狂饮”界限的人(女性/男性每次饮酒少于4/5杯)、符合传统“狂饮”饮酒标准的人,以及更高的“狂饮”界限,即6/7杯以上(女性/男性)。我们研究了醉酒程度、饮酒频率和独特类型的酒精问题之间的差异。参与者(N = 356;184名女性)是美国一所中型大学中经常饮酒的大学生,他们完成了一系列自我报告测量,包括每日饮酒日历和8个领域的青年成人酒精后果问卷(YAACQ)。计算了估计血液酒精水平(eBALs)。我们发现,标准的4/5杯“狂饮”界限在区分饮酒者的一些但并非所有酒精相关指标方面是有效的。“狂饮”饮酒者与“非狂饮”饮酒者在eBAL上存在差异,但对于其他指标(饮酒频率、酒精后果总数),只有“重度狂饮”饮酒者与“非狂饮”饮酒者存在显著差异。重要的是,“重度狂饮”饮酒者经历的那些与更成问题的酒精摄入相关的特定后果水平更高。研究结果表明,并非所有“狂饮”饮酒者的饮酒方式、醉酒程度或经历的后果都相似。因此,区分重度饮酒者可能有用,以便适当关注那些面临不同类型后果风险最大的人。