Patterns of Lifetime Alcohol Use in a Clinical Sample of Older Male Veterans

Karel, Michele J.; Lynch, Brendan; Moye, Jennifer

doi:10.1300/j018v22n01_06

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the studies ( n = 20, 80%) were conducted in the USA (e.g., Cimarolli et al, 2018; Ermann et al, 2016; Schutte et al, 2009), two (8%) were conducted in Denmark (Emiliussen et al, 2019; Wieben et al, 2018), one (4%) in Germany (Dauber et al, 2018), one (4%) in South Africa (Geyer, 2010), and one (4%) was cross-national covering Denmark, Germany, and the USA (Andersen et al, 2020). The majority ( n = 17, 68%) were conducted between 2000 and 2010 (e.g., D'Agostino et al, 2006; Karel et al, 2000; Oslin, Karel, Lynch, & Moye, 2009), whereas eight (32%) were conducted between 2011 and 2021 (e.g., Andersen et al, 2020; Cimarolli et al, 2018; Lewis et al, 2017).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Almost all the studies were quantitative ( n = 17, 68%), of which ten (40%) were longitudinal, two (8%) were cross-sectional (Munro et al, 2000; Stefanovics et al, 2020), and five (20%) were not specified (e.g., Fein & McGillivray, 2007). Two studies (8%) were qualitative (Ermann et al, 2016; Lewis et al, 2017), two (8%) were mixed methods (Cimarolli et al, 2018; Geyer, 2010), one (4%) was exploratory (Dauber et al, 2018), two (8%) were a randomized controlled trial (Andersen et al, 2020; Oslin et al, 2002), and one (4%) was a pilot study (Karel et al, 2000).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 13 studies (52%), the participants had a mean age of 60–65 (e.g., Dauber et al, 2018; Oslin et al, 2002; Satre et al, 2007). In four studies (16%), the participants had a mean age of 66–70 (e.g., Karel et al, 2000; Slaymaker & Owen, 2008), in two studies (8%), the mean age was 71–75 (D'Agostino et al, 2006; Schutte et al, 2009), in one study (4%), the participants were 76 and over (Lewis et al, 2017) and one study (4%) examined two groups of participants where the mean age of one group was 60–65 (early onset) and the other group was aged 66–70 (late onset) (Emiliussen et al, 2019). Three studies (12%) examined a population aged 55 and older (Lemke & Moos, 2003a; 2003b; 2002), and one (4%) examined a sample aged 60 and older (Mosher-Ashley & Rabon, 2001).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Recovery from Alcohol Use Disorder among Older Adults: A Scoping Review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) among older people is under-diagnosed even though the population of older people is rising. Recovery from AUD among older people is a challenging process. A scoping review of the literature on recovery from AUD among older people was conducted to characterize the main topics in recovery. A systematic search was conducted in five databases: Psycinfo, Medline, CINHAL, WoS, and Embase from January 2000 to May 2021 using the PRISMA-ScR. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. The concept of recovery was defined in 20 studies, where the most frequent term was “abstinence.” 16 studies described treatment programs with different types of interventions. Six studies described specific programs for older people; five reported positive outcomes. Future studies should implement a broader definition of recovery that reflects the dimensions of the concept and refers to different age groups, to enable interdisciplinary professionals to develop holistic interventions.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Recovery from Alcohol Use Disorder among Older Adults: A Scoping Review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirty four studies were considered for the review but they did not meet the inclusion criteria (Amiesen, 2005;Brown, Kranzler & Del Boca, 1992;Bargiel-Matusiewicz & Ziebaczewska, 2006;Happell et al, 2002;Chan et al, 1997;Cunningham2009;De Guzman et al, 2006;De Maeyer et al, 2008;Grant1997;Giovazolias & Davis, 2005;Grebot, Coffinet & Laugier, 2008;Hoerter et al, 2004;Kahan et al, 2004;Kaner et al, 1999;Karel et al, 2000;Koski-Jannes, 1998;Laudet, 2003;MacDonald et al, 2007;Mackenzie & Allen, 2003;Miller, Thomas & Mallin, 2006;Orford et al, 2009;Pettinati et al, 2003;Pithouse1996;Sellman1996;Strobbe et al, 2004;Swift et al, 1998;Thomas & Miller, 2007;Tonigan et al, 2000;Tucker et al, 2009;Vuchinich & Tucker, 1996;Wells, Horwood & Fergusson, 2007;White et al, 2004;Wild et al, 1998) the most common reasons for exclusion were that alcohol was not the primary substance used; or there was not a high enough percentage of people who were alcohol dependent or reaching harmful levels of alcohol consumption; or the studies were quantitative or surveys. The characteristics of all the studies reviewed in this section have been summarised in Appendix 16a.…”

Section: Studies Consideredmentioning

confidence: 99%

Alcohol Use Disorders

Sher¹

2010

The Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This guideline is one of three pieces of NICE guidance addressing alcohol-use disorders. The present guideline addresses the management of alcohol dependence and harmful alcohol use in people 10 years and older including: assessment, pharmacological interventions, psychological and psychosocial interventions, and settings of assisted withdrawal and rehabilitation. The two other NICE guidelines address: 1) The prevention of alcohol-use disorders in people 10 years and older, which is public health guidance on the price of alcohol, advertising and availability of alcohol, how best to detect alcohol misuse both in and outside primary care and brief interventions to manage alcohol misuse in these settings (NICE, 2010a), and 2) The assessment and clinical management in people 10 years and older of acute alcohol withdrawal, including delirium tremens, liver damage, acute and chronic pancreatitis and the management of Wernicke's encephalopathy (NICE, 2010b). This guideline will sometimes use the term alcohol misuse, which will encompass both people with alcohol dependence and harmful alcohol use. The guideline recommendations have been developed by a multidisciplinary team of healthcare professionals, lay member, service user and carer representatives, and guideline methodologists, after careful consideration of the best available evidence. It is intended that the guideline will be useful to clinicians and service commissioners in providing and planning high-quality care for people who misuse alcohol while also emphasising the importance of the experience of care for them and their carers. Although the evidence base is expanding, there are also a number of gaps in the literature. The guideline makes a number of research recommendations specifically to address gaps in the evidence base. In the meantime, it is hoped that the guideline will assist clinicians, people who misuse alcohol and their carers by identifying the merits of particular treatment approaches where the evidence from research and clinical experience exists. National guideline 1.1.1What are clinical practice guidelines? Clinical practice guidelines are 'systematically developed statements that assist clinicians and patients in making decisions about appropriate treatment for specific conditions' (Mann, 1996). They are derived from the best available research evidence, using predetermined and systematic methods to identify and evaluate the evidence relating to the specific condition in question. Where evidence is lacking, the guidelines incorporate statements and recommendations based upon the consensus statements developed by the Guideline Development Group (GDG). Clinical guidelines are intended to improve the process and outcomes of healthcare in a number of different ways. They can:

show abstract

“…We had the opportunity to address this issue using data from a multi-center, interdisciplinary, randomized clinical demonstration project targeting elderly veterans without recent psychopathology hospitalized in acute medical and surgical units. This project, entitled Unified Psychogeriatric Biopsychosocial Evaluation and Treatment, is known by the acronym of UPBEAT (Druss et al, 1999;Karel et al, 2000;Kominski et al, 2001;Mistry et al, 2001;Lavretsky and Kumar, 2002). Patients were enrolled into UPBEAT based upon their symptoms of depression and anxiety as measured by the Mental Health Inventory (MHI) depression and anxiety subscales (Veit and Ware, 1983;Weinstein et al, 1989;.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%