Corbin William R, Zalewski Suzanne, Leeman Robert F, Toll Benjamin A, Fucito Lisa M, O'Malley Stephanie S
Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2014 Oct;38(10):2657-63. doi: 10.1111/acer.12514.
There 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 0.08 g%). In response to these concerns, a National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism task force recommended adding a time qualifier of 2 hours 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.
This 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 0.08 g% 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.
Contrary to the purpose of adding a time qualifier, the new binge measure was not more strongly correlated with drinking to an estimated BAC of 0.08 g% 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.
These 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.
有一致的证据表明,男性每次饮酒场合饮用5杯以上(女性4杯以上)的暴饮标准与负面后果风险相关。然而,许多人质疑这一衡量标准作为中毒指标(例如,血液酒精浓度[BAC]为0.08 g%)是否充分。针对这些担忧,美国国家酒精滥用与酒精中毒研究所的一个特别工作组建议在该标准中增加2小时的时间限定。尽管在概念上很有吸引力,但几乎没有努力去确定这一新措施是否能更好地捕捉导致负面后果的饮酒行为。
本研究考察了新的暴饮标准(2小时时间段)和旧的暴饮标准(无时间限定)与达到估计BAC为0.08 g%的饮酒频率以及负面饮酒后果经历之间的关系。在参与饮酒减少随机临床试验的成年人社交饮酒样本(N = 200)和重度饮酒青年样本(N = 168)中对这些关系进行了考察。
与增加时间限定的目的相反,相对于旧的暴饮标准,新的暴饮标准与达到估计BAC为0.08 g%的饮酒行为之间的相关性并不更强。此外,当将这两个标准同时纳入回归模型时,只有旧的暴饮标准能够解释负面饮酒后果的显著方差。
这些基于实证的结果表明,作为风险标志物,没有时间限定的原始暴饮标准可能比2小时标准更可取。研究结果还表明,需要进一步努力确定一种能够有效捕捉达到中毒程度的饮酒行为及相关负面后果风险的简短衡量标准。