BACKGROUNDThere is uncertainty over whether maternal smoking is associated with birth defects. We conducted the first ever comprehensive systematic review to establish which specific malformations are associated with smoking.METHODSObservational studies published 1959–2010 were identified (Medline), and included if they reported the odds ratio (OR) for having a non-chromosomal birth defect among women who smoked during pregnancy compared with non-smokers. ORs adjusted for potential confounders were extracted (e.g. maternal age and alcohol), otherwise unadjusted estimates were used. One hundred and seventy-two articles were used in the meta-analyses: a total of 173 687 malformed cases and 11 674 332 unaffected controls.RESULTSSignificant positive associations with maternal smoking were found for: cardiovascular/heart defects [OR 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.17]; musculoskeletal defects (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.05–1.27); limb reduction defects (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.15–1.39); missing/extra digits (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.99–1.41); clubfoot (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10–1.47); craniosynostosis (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03–1.73); facial defects (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.06–1.35); eye defects (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.11–1.40); orofacial clefts (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.20–1.36); gastrointestinal defects (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.18–1.36); gastroschisis (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.28–1.76); anal atresia (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06–1.36); hernia (OR 1.40, 95% CI 1.23–1.59); and undescended testes (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02–1.25). There was a reduced risk for hypospadias (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85–0.95) and skin defects (OR 0.82, 0.75–0.89). For all defects combined the OR was 1.01 (0.96–1.07), due to including defects with a reduced risk and those with no association (including chromosomal defects).CONCLUSIONSBirth defects that are positively associated with maternal smoking should now be included in public health educational materials to encourage more women to quit before or during pregnancy.

PurposeThe Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS), 14 positively worded statements, is a validated instrument to measure mental wellbeing on a population level. Less is known about the population distribution of the shorter seven-item version (SWEMWBS) or its performance as an instrument to measure wellbeing.MethodsUsing the Health Survey for England 2010–2013 (n = 27,169 adults aged 16+, nationally representative of the population), age- and sex-specific norms were estimated using means and percentiles. Criterion validity was examined using: (1) Spearman correlations (ρ) for SWEMWBS with General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), happiness index, EQ-VAS (2) a multinomial logit model with SWEMWBS (low, medium and high wellbeing) as the outcome and demographic, social and health behaviours as explanatory variables. Relative validity was examined by comparing SWEMWBS with WEMWBS using: (1) Spearman correlations (continuous data), and (2) the weighted kappa statistic (categorical), within population subgroups.ResultsMean (median) SWEMWBS was 23.7 (23.2) for men and 23.2 (23.2) for women (p = 0.100). Spearman correlations were moderately sized for the happiness index (ρ = 0.53, P < 0.001), GHQ-12 (ρ = −0.52, p < 0.001) and EQ-VAS (ρ = 0.40, p < 0.001). Participants consuming <1 portion of fruit and vegetables a day versus ≥5 (odds ratio = 1.43 95% Confidence Interval = (1.22–1.66)) and current smokers versus non-smokers (1.28 (1.15–1.41)) were more likely to have low vs medium wellbeing. Participants who binge drank versus non-drinkers were less likely to have high versus medium wellbeing (0.81 (0.71–0.92)). Spearman correlations between SWEMWBS and WEMWBS were above 0.95; weighted kappa statistics showed almost perfect agreement (0.79–0.85).ConclusionSWEMWBS distinguishes mental wellbeing between subgroups, similarly to WEMWBS, but is less sensitive to gender differences.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-016-1454-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectiveTo use the relation between cigarette consumption and cardiovascular disease to quantify the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke for light smoking (one to five cigarettes/day).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline 1946 to May 2015, with manual searches of references.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesProspective cohort studies with at least 50 events, reporting hazard ratios or relative risks (both hereafter referred to as relative risk) compared with never smokers or age specific incidence in relation to risk of coronary heart disease or stroke.Data extraction/synthesisMOOSE guidelines were followed. For each study, the relative risk was estimated for smoking one, five, or 20 cigarettes per day by using regression modelling between risk and cigarette consumption. Relative risks were adjusted for at least age and often additional confounders. The main measure was the excess relative risk for smoking one cigarette per day (RR1_per_day−1) expressed as a proportion of that for smoking 20 cigarettes per day (RR20_per_day−1), expected to be about 5% assuming a linear relation between risk and consumption (as seen with lung cancer). The relative risks for one, five, and 20 cigarettes per day were also pooled across all studies in a random effects meta-analysis. Separate analyses were done for each combination of sex and disorder.ResultsThe meta-analysis included 55 publications containing 141 cohort studies. Among men, the pooled relative risk for coronary heart disease was 1.48 for smoking one cigarette per day and 2.04 for 20 cigarettes per day, using all studies, but 1.74 and 2.27 among studies in which the relative risk had been adjusted for multiple confounders. Among women, the pooled relative risks were 1.57 and 2.84 for one and 20 cigarettes per day (or 2.19 and 3.95 using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). Men who smoked one cigarette per day had 46% of the excess relative risk for smoking 20 cigarettes per day (53% using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors), and women had 31% of the excess risk (38% using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). For stroke, the pooled relative risks for men were 1.25 and 1.64 for smoking one or 20 cigarettes per day (1.30 and 1.56 using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). In women, the pooled relative risks were 1.31 and 2.16 for smoking one or 20 cigarettes per day (1.46 and 2.42 using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). The excess risk for stroke associated with one cigarette per day (in relation to 20 cigarettes per day) was 41% for men and 34% for women (or 64% and 36% using relative risks adjusted for multiple factors). Relative risks were generally higher among women than men.ConclusionsSmoking only about one cigarette per day carries a risk of developing coronary heart disease and stroke much greater than expected: around half that for people who smoke 20 per day. No safe level of smoking exists for cardiovascular disease. Smokers should aim to quit instead of cutting...

BackgroundUnder-reporting of alcohol consumption is widespread; surveys typically capture 40-60% of alcohol sales. However the population distribution of under-reporting is not well understood.MethodsMixed-methods study to identify factors associated with under-reporting, using the nationally-representative Health Survey for England (HSE) 2011 (overall response rate 66%). Comparison of retrospective computer-assisted personal interview and seven-day drinking diary (n = 3,774 adults 18+, 50% women, diary response rate 69%) to identify factors associated with diary responses exceeding those of the interview using multivariable linear regression for three outcomes: drinking days in the week recorded, volume consumed on heaviest drinking day in the week recorded, and weekly alcohol consumption. Qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 10) explored reasons for under-reporting in further detail.ResultsNumber of drinking days was slightly greater in the diary than the interview (P < 0.001). Reported consumption was higher in the diary than in the interview for heaviest drinking day in the week recorded (0.7 units greater among men, 1.2 units among women, P < 0.001), and weekly alcohol consumption in women only (1.1 units among women, P = 0.003). Participants who drank more frequently, more heavily, and had a more varied drinking pattern with respect to the types of drink consumed or choice of drinking venues had a larger difference between their diary week and their interview week.The qualitative interviews identified having a non-routine drinking pattern, self-perception as a non-frequent drinker, and usually tracking drinking using experiential approaches as linked to more drinking being reported in the diary than the retrospective interview.ConclusionsHeavy drinking and non-routine drinking patterns may be associated with greater under-reporting of alcohol consumption. Estimates of drinking above recommended levels are likely to be disproportionately under-estimated.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1297) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThere is consistent evidence that individuals in higher socioeconomic status groups are more likely to report exceeding recommended drinking limits, but those in lower socioeconomic status groups experience more alcohol-related harm. This has been called the ‘alcohol harm paradox’. Such studies typically use standard cut-offs to define heavy drinking, which are exceeded by a large proportion of adults. Our study pools data from six years (2008–2013) of the population-based Health Survey for England to test whether the socioeconomic distribution of more extreme levels of drinking could help explain the paradox.MethodsThe study included 51,498 adults from a representative sample of the adult population of England for a cross-sectional analysis of associations between socioeconomic status and self-reported drinking. Heavy weekly drinking was measured at four thresholds, ranging from 112 g+/168 g + (alcohol for women/men, or 14/21 UK standard units) to 680 g+/880 g + (or 85/110 UK standard units) per week. Heavy episodic drinking was also measured at four thresholds, from 48 g+/64 g + (or 6/8 UK standard units) to 192 g+/256 g + (or 24/32 UK standard units) in one day. Socioeconomic status indicators were equivalised household income, education, occupation and neighbourhood deprivation.ResultsLower socioeconomic status was associated with lower likelihoods of exceeding recommended limits for weekly and episodic drinking, and higher likelihoods of exceeding more extreme thresholds. For example, participants in routine or manual occupations had 0.65 (95 % CI 0.57–0.74) times the odds of exceeding the recommended weekly limit compared to those in ‘higher managerial’ occupations, and 2.15 (95 % CI 1.06–4.36) times the odds of exceeding the highest threshold. Similarly, participants in the lowest income quintile had 0.60 (95 % CI 0.52–0.69) times the odds of exceeding the recommended weekly limit when compared to the highest quintile, and 2.30 (95 % CI 1.28–4.13) times the odds of exceeding the highest threshold.ConclusionsLow socioeconomic status groups are more likely to drink at extreme levels, which may partially explain the alcohol harm paradox. Policies that address alcohol-related health inequalities need to consider extreme drinking levels in some sub-groups that may be associated with multiple markers of deprivation. This will require a more disaggregated understanding of drinking practices.

Revising alcohol consumption assuming equal under-reporting across the population does not have an equal effect on the proportion of adults drinking above weekly or daily thresholds. It is crucial that further research explores the population distribution of under-reporting.

ObjectivesTo assess the evidence for price-based alcohol policy interventions to determine whether minimum unit pricing (MUP) is likely to be effective.DesignSystematic review and assessment of studies according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, against the Bradford Hill criteria for causality. Three electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2017. Additional articles were found through hand searching and grey literature searches.Criteria for selecting studiesWe included any study design that reported on the effect of price-based interventions on alcohol consumption or alcohol-related morbidity, mortality and wider harms. Studies reporting on the effects of taxation or affordability and studies that only investigated price elasticity of demand were beyond the scope of this review. Studies with any conflict of interest were excluded. All studies were appraised for methodological quality.ResultsOf 517 studies assessed, 33 studies were included: 26 peer-reviewed research studies and seven from the grey literature. All nine of the Bradford Hill criteria were met, although different types of study satisfied different criteria. For example, modelling studies complied with the consistency and specificity criteria, time series analyses demonstrated the temporality and experiment criteria, and the analogy criterion was fulfilled by comparing the findings with the wider literature on taxation and affordability.ConclusionsOverall, the Bradford Hill criteria for causality were satisfied. There was very little evidence that minimum alcohol prices are not associated with consumption or subsequent harms. However the overall quality of the evidence was variable, a large proportion of the evidence base has been produced by a small number of research teams, and the quantitative uncertainty in many estimates or forecasts is often poorly communicated outside the academic literature. Nonetheless, price-based alcohol policy interventions such as MUP are likely to reduce alcohol consumption, alcohol-related morbidity and mortality.

Background: Whether alcohol and cannabis complement or substitute each other has been studied for over two decades. In the changing cannabis policy landscape, debates are moving rapidly and spill-over effects on other substances are of interest. Aims: update and extend a previous systematic review, by: (a) identifying new human behavioural studies reporting on substitution and/or complementarity of alcohol and cannabis, and (b) additionally including animal studies. Methods: We replicated the search strategy of an earlier systematic review, supplemented with a new search for animal studies. Search results were crossed checked against the earlier review and reference lists were hand searched. Findings were synthesised using a narrative synthesis. Results: Sixty-five articles were included (64 in humans, one in animals). We synthesised findings into categories: patterns of use, substitution practices, economic relationship, substance use disorders, policy evaluation, others and animal studies. Overall, 30 studies found evidence for substitution, 17 for complementarity, 14 did not find evidence for either, and four found evidence for both. Conclusions: Overall, the evidence regarding complementarity and substitution of cannabis and alcohol is mixed. We identified stronger support for substitution than complementarity, though evidence indicates different effects in different populations and to some extent across different study designs. The quality of studies varied and few were designed specifically to address this question. Dedicated high-quality research is warranted.