Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2021 Sep;45(9):1821-1828. doi: 10.1111/acer.14676. Epub 2021 Aug 18.
The degree to which binge and high-intensity drinking prevalence estimates vary from fixed threshold frequency and continuous maximum drinks measures is unknown. The current study compared prevalence estimates for adolescent binge and high-intensity drinking (5+ drinks, 10+ drinks, respectively) and sex-specific thresholds using fixed threshold frequency and continuous maximum drinks measures.
Data were obtained from 7911 respondents participating in the 2018 and 2019 nationally representative Monitoring the Future 12th-grade surveys. Comparisons of frequency prevalence (e.g., any occasions of 5+ drinking using the frequency measure) versus maximum drinks prevalence (e.g., reporting 5 or more drinks using the maximum number of drinks measure) were made using all respondents and then separately within males and females.
Among the sample overall and within sex, binge drinking estimates from the 5+ frequency prevalence and 5+ maximum drinks prevalence measures evidenced overlapping confidence intervals (estimates were slightly higher for frequency prevalence); similar results were observed for high-intensity drinking 10+ frequency prevalence and 10+ maximum drinks prevalence. For example, among the sample overall, 5+ frequency prevalence was 11.4% [95% CI 10.3, 12.6]; 5+ maximum drinks prevalence was 10.7% [9.6, 11.8]; 10+ frequency prevalence was 5.1% [4.4, 5.8]; and 10+ maximum drinks prevalence was 4.1% [3.5, 4.7]. Using sex-specific thresholds (i.e., 4+ drinks for females and 5+ drinks for males), binge frequency and maximum drinks levels also had overlapping confidence intervals. Binge drinking prevalence estimates for females were approximately 1.5 times higher using sex-specific (4+) versus universal (5+) thresholds.
In this nationally representative sample of 12th-grade students, prevalence levels for 5+ and 10+ drinking did not differ significantly when using frequency versus maximum drinks measures. Among females, binge drinking prevalence was higher using sex-specific versus universal thresholds. Both the frequency and maximum drinks measures provided comparable estimates of binge and high-intensity drinking prevalence among older adolescents.
目前尚不清楚 binge 和高强度饮酒的流行率估计值从固定阈值频率和连续最大饮酒量测量值上的差异程度。本研究比较了使用固定阈值频率和连续最大饮酒量测量值的青少年 binge 和高强度饮酒（分别为 5+ 次饮酒、10+ 次饮酒）和性别特异性阈值的流行率估计值。
数据来自于 2018 年和 2019 年参与全国代表性监测未来 12 年级调查的 7911 名受访者。使用所有受访者以及男性和女性内部的频率流行率（例如，使用频率测量值报告 5 次或以上的任何场合的 5+ 次饮酒）与最大饮酒量流行率（例如，使用最大饮酒量测量值报告 5 次或以上的 5 次或以上饮酒）进行比较。
在整个样本中以及在性别内部，来自 5+ 频率流行率和 5+ 最大饮酒量流行率测量值的 binge 饮酒估计值具有重叠的置信区间（频率流行率的估计值略高）；对于高强度饮酒 10+ 频率流行率和 10+ 最大饮酒量流行率，也观察到了类似的结果。例如，在整个样本中，5+ 频率流行率为 11.4%[95%CI 10.3, 12.6]；5+ 最大饮酒量流行率为 10.7%[9.6, 11.8]；10+ 频率流行率为 5.1%[4.4, 5.8]；10+ 最大饮酒量流行率为 4.1%[3.5, 4.7]。使用性别特异性阈值（即女性 4+ 次饮酒，男性 5+ 次饮酒），binge 频率和最大饮酒量水平也具有重叠的置信区间。使用性别特异性（4+）与通用（5+）阈值时，女性 binge 饮酒流行率估计值大约高出 1.5 倍。
在这个具有全国代表性的 12 年级学生样本中，使用频率与最大饮酒量测量值时，5+和 10+饮酒的流行率水平没有显著差异。在女性中，使用性别特异性与通用阈值时，binge 饮酒流行率更高。在年龄较大的青少年中，频率和最大饮酒量测量值均提供了 binge 和高强度饮酒流行率的可比估计值。
