Beyond pre-loading: Understanding the associations between pre-, side- and back-loading drinking behavior and risky drinking

Abstract

This study examined the interaction between pre-, side- and back-loading drinking behaviors and their relationship to risky drinking, modeling to account for demographic characteristics. The study was based on an online non-probability panel survey of Victorian adults (18+) who purchased packaged liquor for off premises consumption in the previous 12months. Initially, 2545 participants entered the study, with 536 screened out, leaving a sample of 2008 respondents. While pre-loading was the most commonly reported loading behavior, back-loading and side-loading were reported almost as frequently. We found a clear association between loading and risky drinking behavior. Respondents who reported engaging in all loading behaviors were more likely to report regular very risky drinking. Age and sex were significant factors influencing the relationship between loading types and risky drinking behavior; income, marital status, and the interaction between sex and age were not significant factors. We show a broad range of loading behaviors associated with increased levels of risky drinking. Future research should seek to investigate these loading behaviors among a general population sample.

The country‐level effects of drinking, heavy drinking and drink prices on pre‐drinking: An international comparison of 25 countries

“…Second, research in North America is typically dominated by samples of college students completing retrospective questionnaires, whereas research from other countries typically focus on nightlife goers by using street intercept or portal recruitment methods . Third, the sample composition are different, ranging from adolescents to the elderly . Fourth, the reference period to assess the pre‐drinking behaviours ranges from ‘on the night of the interview’ to ‘at least once in the past year’ .…”

Side-loading prevalence and intoxication in the night-time economy

“…We therefore adopt an alternative definition of side-loading, being the consumption of alcohol during a night out or event, occurring at a location other than a licensed venue or a private home. This extends the definition of O’Rourke et al (2016) to consider cases where drinkers hide alcohol outside a licensed premises, for drinking later (e.g. see Wright et al, 2014 ), and excludes drinking of alcohol smuggled into a licensed premises.…”

“…It has since been identified using observational methods, such as in Australia ( Miller et al, 2012b ), but rarely directly studied. O’Rourke et al (2016, p. 147) broadened Forsyth’s definition of side-loading to “the consumption of alcohol when smuggled into licensed premises, such as pubs, bars and clubs…, or while traveling to and between licensed premises”. We note that even this definition potentially misses some important drinking behaviour, where drinkers exit a licensed premises to consume alcohol purchased elsewhere, before returning to the same premises .…”

“…He noted that opportunities for side-loading (as per his narrow definition) were limited by systematic door searches by security staff. O’Rourke (2016) , based on an online survey of 2008 adults (mean age 49.7 years) in Victoria, Australia, found that 23 percent of respondents had engaged in side-loading at least once in the previous twelve months. They found that side-loading was more common among younger people, but unlike pre-drinking and back-loading (drinking after a night out, e.g.…”

The impact of changes to alcohol policy on patron drinking behaviours in Queensland

“…Drinking prior to going out in entertainment precincts (i.e. pre-drinking) is a major contributor to alcohol-related harm [10][11][12][13]. Previous Australian studies have highlighted the increasing prevalence of pre-drinking, and the culture that has developed around pre-drinking at home [13][14][15].…”