Based on a literature search undertaken to determine the impacts of past public health crises, and a systematic review of the effects of past economic crises on alcohol consumption, two main scenarios-with opposite predictions regarding the impact of the current COVID-19 pandemic on the level and patterns of alcohol consumption-are introduced. The first scenario predicts an increase in consumption for some populations, particularly men, due to distress experienced as a result of the pandemic. A second scenario predicts the opposite outcome, a lowered level of consumption, based on the decreased physical and financial availability of alcohol. With the current restrictions on alcohol availability, it is postulated that, for the immediate future, the predominant scenario will likely be the second, while the distress experienced in the first may become more relevant in the medium-and longer-term future. Monitoring consumption levels both during and after the COVID-19 pandemic will be necessary to better understand the effects of COVID-19 on different groups, as well as to distinguish them from those arising from existing alcohol control policies. [Rehm J, Kilian C, Ferreira-Borges C, Jernigan D, Monteiro M, Parry CDH, Sanchez ZM, Manthey J. Alcohol use in times of the COVID 19: Implications for monitoring and policy. Drug Alcohol Rev 2020;39: [301][302][303][304]

Background Individuals with low socioeconomic status (SES) experience disproportionately greater alcohol-attributable health harm than individuals with high SES from similar or lower amounts of alcohol consumption. Our aim was to provide an update of the current evidence for the role of alcohol use and drinking patterns in socioeconomic inequalities in mortality, as well as the effect modification or interaction effects between SES and alcohol use, as two potential explanations of this so-called alcohol-harm paradox.Methods We did a systematic review, searching Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science (published between Jan 1, 2013, and June 30, 2019) for studies reporting alcohol consumption, SES, and mortality. Observational, quantitative studies of the general adult population (aged ≥15 years) with a longitudinal study design were included. Two outcome measures were extracted: first, the proportion of socioeconomic inequalities in mortality explained by alcohol use; and second, the effect modification or interaction between SES and alcohol use regarding mortality risks. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019140279).Findings Of 1941 records identified, ten met the inclusion criteria. The included studies contained more than 400 000 adults, more than 30 000 deaths from all causes, and more than 3000 100% alcohol-attributable events. Alcohol use explained up to 27% of the socioeconomic inequalities in mortality. The proportion of socioeconomic inequalities explained systematically differed by drinking pattern, with heavy episodic drinking having a potentially significant explanatory value. Although scarce, there was some evidence of effect modification or interaction between SES and alcohol use.Interpretation To reduce socioeconomic inequalities in mortality, addressing heavy episodic drinking in particular, rather than alcohol use in general, is worth exploring as a public health strategy.

AimsTo investigate changes in alcohol consumption during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe as well as its associations with income and experiences of distress related to the pandemic. Design Cross-sectional on-line survey conducted between 24 April and 22 July 2020. Setting Twenty-one European countries. Participants A total of 31 964 adults reporting past-year drinking. Measurements Changes in alcohol consumption

No abstract

Population survey research is limited by biases introduced through the exclusion of sub‐populations from the sampling frame and by non‐response bias. This is a particular problem for alcohol surveys, where populations such as the homeless and the institutionalised—who consume on average more alcohol than the general population—are usually excluded, and where people who respond to alcohol surveys tend to consume less alcohol than those who do not. These biases lead to the underestimation of alcohol consumption at the population level, which can be corrected for by triangulating alcohol consumption data with population data sources (i.e. taxation and production). Other methods which account for the biases inherent in surveys include triangulation with outcomes (e.g. traffic injuries), calculation of estimates for groups which are outside common sampling frames, and combining probabilistic sampling with new methodologies, such as computer‐assisted web interviews. In particular, population surveys do not attract sufficient participation numbers for certain groups, such as the marginalised urban male youths. In this situation, it may be helpful to add estimates generated via respondent‐driven sampling or non‐probabilistic web panels restricted to a specific group to such population surveys. Additionally, computer‐assisted web interviews perform better for sensitive questions, such as those about personal alcohol use. In sum, based on the objectives, the future of survey will need to include statistical modelling, adding data from external sources for validation and combining data from various types of surveys.