Suppr超能文献

澳大利亚大学生的饮酒率和风险状况因评估问题而异。

Rates of alcohol consumption and risk status among Australian university students vary by assessment questions.

机构信息

Illawarra Institute for Mental Health,School of Psychology, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, NSW 2522, Australia.

出版信息

Drug Alcohol Rev. 2010 Jan;29(1):28-34. doi: 10.1111/j.1465-3362.2009.00082.x.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

Different self-report methods tend to produce different estimates of alcohol consumption. The present study compares differences in rates and risk levels based on responses to a modified version of the Daily Drinking Questionnaire (m-DDQ) and quantity-frequency (QF) questions.

DESIGN AND METHODS

The sample comprised 2082 university students, 61% of whom were female and 39% male with a mean age of 23.5 years. An email containing an online link to a brief six-question survey was e-mailed to students enrolled in participating faculties at the University of Wollongong, Australia. Current drinkers completed m-DDQ and QF questions about alcohol consumption.

RESULTS

QF methods identified significantly lower estimates of consumption (Mean = 9.15, SD = 12.51) compared with m-DDQ (Mean = 13.06, SD = 14.07). Allocation to risk categories based on the Australian Alcohol Guidelines were conducted for both the m-DDQ and QF methods. Almost twice as many students were found to be drinking at levels considered risky using the m-DDQ method compared with QF. In addition, the relative rank order of participants varied significantly between the two methods.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The m-DDQ method identified higher rates of drinking and categorised almost twice as many individuals into risky categories of drinking compared with QF. Such variations have major implications for identification of risk groups in health promotion or prevention programs.

摘要

介绍和目的

不同的自我报告方法往往会产生不同的饮酒估计。本研究比较了基于对每日饮酒问卷(m-DDQ)和数量频率(QF)问题的修改版本的回答产生的差异率和风险水平。

设计和方法

该样本包括 2082 名大学生,其中 61%为女性,39%为男性,平均年龄为 23.5 岁。向澳大利亚卧龙岗大学参与院系的学生发送了一封包含在线链接到简短的六问题调查的电子邮件。目前的饮酒者完成了 m-DDQ 和关于酒精消费的 QF 问题。

结果

与 m-DDQ(Mean = 13.06,SD = 14.07)相比,QF 方法确定的消费估计值明显较低(Mean = 9.15,SD = 12.51)。根据澳大利亚酒精指南,对 m-DDQ 和 QF 两种方法进行了风险分类。使用 m-DDQ 方法发现,与 QF 相比,更多的学生被认为处于危险饮酒水平。此外,两种方法之间参与者的相对等级顺序差异显著。

讨论和结论

m-DDQ 方法确定的饮酒率更高,并且将几乎两倍的个体归类为比 QF 更危险的饮酒类别。这种差异对健康促进或预防计划中确定风险群体具有重大影响。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验