Ulster University, Coleraine, Northern Ireland.
University of Sheffield, Sheffield, England.
PLoS One. 2022 Mar 24;17(3):e0265145. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265145. eCollection 2022.
Two theoretical perspectives have been proffered to explain changes in alcohol use during the pandemic: the 'affordability-availability' mechanism (i.e., drinking decreases due to changes in physical availability and/or reduced disposable income) and the 'psychological-coping' mechanism (i.e., drinking increases as adults attempt to cope with pandemic-related distress). We tested these alternative perspectives via longitudinal analyses of the COVID-19 Psychological Consortium (C19PRC) Study data (spanning three timepoints during March to July 2020). Respondents provided data on psychological measures (e.g., anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress, paranoia, extraversion, neuroticism, death anxiety, COVID-19 anxiety, intolerance of uncertainty, resilience), changes in socio-economic circumstances (e.g., income loss, reduced working hours), drinking motives, solitary drinking, and 'at-risk' drinking (assessed using a modified version of the AUDIT-C). Structural equation modelling was used to determine (i) whether 'at-risk' drinking during the pandemic differed from that recalled before the pandemic, (ii) dimensions of drinking motives and the psychosocial correlates of these dimensions, (iii) if increased alcohol consumption was predicted by drinking motives, solitary drinking, and socio-economic changes. The proportion of adults who recalled engaging in 'at-risk' drinking decreased significantly from 35.9% pre-pandemic to 32.0% during the pandemic. Drinking to cope was uniquely predicted by experiences of anxiety and/or depression and low resilience levels. Income loss or reduced working hours were not associated with coping, social enhancement, or conformity drinking motives, nor changes in drinking during lockdown. In the earliest stage of the pandemic, psychological-coping mechanisms may have been a stronger driver to changes in adults' alcohol use than 'affordability-availability' alone.
“可及性-可得性”机制（即由于物理可及性和/或可支配收入减少而导致饮酒量减少）和“心理应对”机制（即成年人试图应对大流行相关压力时饮酒量增加）。我们通过对 COVID-19 心理联盟（C19PRC）研究数据的纵向分析（跨越 2020 年 3 月至 7 月的三个时间点）来检验这些替代观点。受访者提供了关于心理测量的信息（例如，焦虑、抑郁、创伤后应激、偏执、外向、神经质、死亡焦虑、COVID-19 焦虑、不确定性容忍度、弹性）、社会经济状况变化（例如，收入损失、工作时间减少）、饮酒动机、独自饮酒和“高危”饮酒（使用修改后的 AUDIT-C 评估）。结构方程模型用于确定：（i）大流行期间的“高危”饮酒是否与大流行前回忆的情况不同，（ii）饮酒动机的维度以及这些维度的心理社会相关性，（iii）如果饮酒动机、独自饮酒和社会经济变化是否预测了酒精摄入量的增加。从大流行前的 35.9%到大流行期间的 32.0%，回忆有“高危”饮酒行为的成年人比例显著下降。饮酒应对焦虑和/或抑郁经历和低弹性水平独特地预测了饮酒应对。收入损失或工作时间减少与应对、社交增强或从众饮酒动机无关，也与封锁期间的饮酒变化无关。在大流行的早期阶段，与“可及性-可得性”相比，心理应对机制可能是导致成年人饮酒行为变化的更强驱动力。
Zotero 插件
