首页> 外文期刊>Alcoholism: Clinical and experimental research >Risky single-occasion drinking and disadvantaged men: Will recruitment through primary care miss hazardous drinkers?
【24h】

Risky single-occasion drinking and disadvantaged men: Will recruitment through primary care miss hazardous drinkers?

机译:危险的单次饮酒和处境不利的男性:通过初级保健招募会错过危险的饮酒者吗?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Background: Men who are socially disadvantaged are at a substantially higher risk of developing alcohol-related diseases. People from deprived areas are known to be more difficult to recruit to research studies. As part of a feasibility assessment for an intervention study, 2 recruitment strategies were investigated. This article compares the drinking patterns of the disadvantaged men identified by the 2 strategies. Methods: A cross-sectional survey compared 2 strategies for recruiting disadvantaged men to a study on alcohol consumption: recruitment through general practice (GP) registers and through a community outreach strategy, respondent-driven sampling (RDS). Men aged 25 to 44 years were recruited from deprived areas in the community. The entry criterion was binge drinking (≥8 units in a single session) at least twice in the previous 4 weeks. Demographic characteristics, total consumption of alcohol, frequency of binge drinking (≥8 units in a session), and heavy binge drinking (≥16 units in a session) were measured. Results: Men recruited by RDS drank more than twice as much as the men recruited through GP (137 units in the previous 30 days compared with 62 units; p = 0.003). They also had many more binge drinking days: more than half (57%) of men from RDS had 6 or more binge drinking days in the previous 30 days, whereas only 16% of the GP sample had 6 or more binge drinking days (p = 0.001). Many more men recruited by RDS (37% vs. 5%; p = 0.002) had more than 5 very heavy drinking sessions in the previous month (≥16 units in a session). The RDS group also had fewer alcohol-free days. Conclusions: The 2 sampling strategies recruited different types of drinkers. The men recruited through RDS were much more likely to engage in frequent harmful drinking. The results indicate that the 2 methods recruit different samples of disadvantaged men. Intervention studies that are only conducted through primary care may miss many harmful drinkers.
机译:背景:处于社会不利地位的男人患酒精相关疾病的风险要高得多。众所周知,来自贫困地区的人很难招募到研究中。作为一项干预研究可行性评估的一部分,调查了2种招募策略。本文比较了这两种策略确定的弱势男性的饮酒方式。方法:一项横断面调查将两种招募处境不利的男性的策略与一项饮酒研究进行了比较:通过普通执业(GP)登记册和社区外展策略进行的招募,受访者驱动的抽样(RDS)。 25至44岁的男性是从社区的贫困地区招募的。进入标准是在前4周内至少两次暴饮暴饮(一次服用≥8单位)。测量了人口统计学特征,酒精总消耗量,暴饮暴饮的频率(每节≥8单位)和重度暴饮暴食(每节≥16单位)。结果:RDS招募的男子喝的酒是GP招募的男子的两倍多(前30天为137单位,而62单位; p = 0.003)。他们还有更多的暴饮酒天数:RDS中超过一半(57%)的男性在过去30天中有6暴饮酒天数,而GP样本中只有16%的暴饮酒天数(p = 0.001)。通过RDS招募的更多男性(37%比5%; p = 0.002)在前一个月(一次疗程中≥16个单位)进行了5次以上非常重度饮酒。 RDS组的无酒精天数也较少。结论:这两种采样策略招募了不同类型的饮酒者。通过RDS招募的男人更有可能经常有害饮酒。结果表明,这两种方法招募了弱势男性的不同样本。仅通过初级保健进行的干预研究可能会错过许多有害的饮酒者。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号