1989
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.298.6673.571-a
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Estimating alcohol content of drinks: common errors in applying the unit system.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 32 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
(1 reference statement)
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The quantity measure of consumption question format was both beverage-specific and drink container-specific, with respondents being asked about bottles as well as glasses of alcohol consumed where possible, to give greater accuracy of estimated amount of alcohol consumed (Lemmens, 1994). Responses were converted to standard units of alcohol using Health Education Authority measures based on one unit of alcohol equalling approximately eight grammes of absolute alcohol (Stockwell and Stirling, 1989) and the total was rounded to the nearest whole unit. The format of this question was modified after Stage One thus improving the valid response rate from 62 per cent to 95 per cent in Stage Two.…”
Section: (H) Qucititity Ofalcolzo1 Consumedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The quantity measure of consumption question format was both beverage-specific and drink container-specific, with respondents being asked about bottles as well as glasses of alcohol consumed where possible, to give greater accuracy of estimated amount of alcohol consumed (Lemmens, 1994). Responses were converted to standard units of alcohol using Health Education Authority measures based on one unit of alcohol equalling approximately eight grammes of absolute alcohol (Stockwell and Stirling, 1989) and the total was rounded to the nearest whole unit. The format of this question was modified after Stage One thus improving the valid response rate from 62 per cent to 95 per cent in Stage Two.…”
Section: (H) Qucititity Ofalcolzo1 Consumedmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although correction efforts have been suggested,5 6 an important unaccounted source of biasin self reported consumption of spirits may have to do with the shape of the glass into which a drink is poured.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The biggest problem with the % ABV measure is that it does not take into account the volume of the drink: although the total amount of alcohol in a drink can be calculated by knowing the drink volume and its % ABV, it is not an easy calculation for most people (Ferner & Chambers, 2001;Kerr & Stockwell, 2012). Indeed, evidence shows that people are poor at estimating the alcohol content of a drink even when they know its % ABV and its volume (Higgs, Stafford, Attwood, Walker, & Terry, 2008;Stockwell, 1993;Stockwell & Stirling, 1989;Webster-Harrison Barton, Sanders, Anderson, & Dobbs, 2002). Participants were particularly inaccurate when estimating the alcohol contents of drinks with high or low % ABV values (Stockwell & Stirling, 1989).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, evidence shows that people are poor at estimating the alcohol content of a drink even when they know its % ABV and its volume (Higgs, Stafford, Attwood, Walker, & Terry, 2008;Stockwell, 1993;Stockwell & Stirling, 1989;Webster-Harrison Barton, Sanders, Anderson, & Dobbs, 2002). Participants were particularly inaccurate when estimating the alcohol contents of drinks with high or low % ABV values (Stockwell & Stirling, 1989). Additionally, Sastre, Mullet, & Sorum (2000) found that, even for equivalent drink volumes, participants incorrectly made a much bigger distinction between the intoxicating effects of beer (4.5% ABV) versus water (0% ABV) than between the effects of beer and wine (12% ABV) or between wine and port (20% ABV).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%