Exploring the characteristics of newly defined at-risk drinkers following the change to the UK low risk drinking guidelines: a retrospective analysis using Health Survey for England data

Abstract

Background Alcohol guidelines enable individuals to make informed choices about drinking and assist healthcare practitioners to identify and treat at-risk drinkers. The UK Low Risk Drinking Guidelines were revised in 2016 and the weekly guideline for men was reduced from 21 to 14 units per week. This study sought to retrospectively establish 1) the number of additional at-risk male drinkers in England, 2) which demographic characteristics were associated with being an at-risk drinker under the previous versus new guidelines. Methods Average weekly alcohol consumption for men aged 16+ from the cross-sectional nationally representative Health Survey for England were used to 1) calculate annual population prevalence estimates for newly defined at-risk (> 14 to ≤21 units/week) male drinkers from 2011 to 2015 ( N = 3487–3790), and 2) conduct logistic regression analyses for at-risk vs low risk male drinkers under the previous (> 21 vs ≤21 units/week) and new (> 14 vs ≤14 units/week) guidelines to assess characteristics associated with being at-risk drinkers under each guideline using 2015 data ( N = 2982). Results Population prevalence estimates of newly defined at-risk drinkers ranged from 10.2% (2014 = 2,182,401 men)-11.2% (2011 = 2,322,896 men). Under the new guidelines, men aged 55–74 (OR = 1.63,95% CI = 1.25–2.12); men in managerial/professional occupations (OR = 1.64,95% CI = 1.34–2.00); current smokers (OR = 2.26,95% CI = 1.73–2.94), ex-regular smokers (OR = 2.01,95% CI = 1.63–2.47) and ex-occasional smokers (OR = 1.85,95% CI = 1.25–2.74); men from the North East (OR = 2.08,95% CI = 1.38–3.13) and North West (OR = 1.91,95% CI = 1.41–2.60) of England all had greater odds, and non-white men had reduced odds (OR = 0.53,95% CI = 0.34–0.80) of being at-risk drinkers, as they had under the previous guidelines. Under the new guidelines only: a higher percentage of at-risk drinkers aged 16–34 (32% vs 19%) attenuated the odds of men aged 35–54 being at-risk (OR = 1.18,95% CI = 0.92–1.51); a higher percentage of married at-risk drinkers (37% vs 24%) attenuated the odds of single men being at-risk (OR = 1.28,95% CI = 0.99–1.67); men from the West Midlands (OR = 1.68,95% CI = 1.17–2.42) and London (OR = 1.53,95% CI = 1.03–2.28) had greater odds of being at-risk drinkers. Conclusions The change to the Low Risk Drinking Guidelines would have resulted in more than 2 million additional male at-risk drinkers in England. Most groups with greater odds of being at-risk drinkers under the new guidelines were those already known to be drinking the most, strengthening the case for targeted screening and education. Additionally, under the new guidelines, a marked proportion of 16–35 year olds and married men were at-risk and men in the West Midlands and London had greater odds of being at-risk drinkers. These groups may benef...

Alcohol use as a predictor of the course of major depressive disorder: a prospective population-based study

“…Both non-drinking and low-risk drinking groups adhere to the Dutch drinking guidelines, which advises not to drink any alcoholic beverages and if one does, to drink no more than one drink each drinking day (Meyboom-de Jong, 2018). The at-risk drinking group are often defined as people who drink above the national drinking guidelines (Case et al, 2019), but not excessively. The high-risk drinking group consumes alcohol in an excessive manner from the perspective of the Dutch excessive alcohol use norms (State of Health and Care, 2022).…”

Health factors that influence sustainable behaviour in a single-player resource management game

“…Convergently, steeper discounting rates are also a well-attested risk factor for a number of psychological disorders linked to problematic patterns of consumption, including alcohol use disorders (Case et al, 2019 ) and co-occurring: depression, somatic symptoms, and social withdrawal (Åhlin et al, 2015 ; Fields et al, 2014 ; Levitt et al, 2023 ). So, good resource outcomes in single-player games are likely to reflect individuals’ tolerance of delays to the larger rewards (offered by sustained resources) while poor outcomes are likely to reflect, at least sometimes, early aggressive harvesting mediated by higher rather than lower delay discounting rates (Odum, 2011 ; Petry, 2001 ; Story et al, 2014 ).…”

Health factors that influence sustainable behaviour in a single-player resource management game

“…Success also involves exploring the impacts of harvesting behaviour on the resource value to estimate its replenishment rate and identify a desired balance between rewards now and viability for the future. So, we tested the hypothesis that individuals' resource outcomes and strategies vary with individuals' delay discounting rates but also one common health-relevant behaviour, hazardous alcohol consumption (Case et al, 2019) and common co-occurring health experiences: depression/anxiety, somatic symptoms and social withdrawal (Åhlin et al, 2015;Bellos et al, 2020). We also sought to identify other factors that might improve the management of resources and tested whether peoples' resource outcomes are positively associated with the life-skill of financial literacy and, more generally, with their well-being.…”