Socio-economic status predicts drinking patterns but not alcohol-related consequences independently
Taisia Huckle
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorRu Quan You
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorSally Casswell
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorTaisia Huckle
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorRu Quan You
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorSally Casswell
Centre for Social and Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
Search for more papers by this authorABSTRACT
Aim To identify independent relationships between socio-economic status and drinking patterns and related consequences and to identify socio-economic groups at risk for heavier consumption.
Design and setting Three comparable national telephone surveys were utilized: 1995, 2000 and 2004. The respondents were aged 18–65 years. Contextual information includes that a number of liberalized alcohol policy changes occurred over the time of the surveys.
Results Educational qualification, income and occupation were associated independently with alcohol consumption. There were indications that the different dimensions of drinking (quantity and frequency) had different relationships with socio-economic status (SES). For example, lower SES groups drank heavier quantities while higher SES groups drank more frequently. SES, however, did not play a major role predicting drinking consequences once drinking patterns were controlled for, although there were some exceptions. It was the lower-to-average SES groups that were at greater risk for drinking heavier quantities compared to other SES groups in the population (as they had sustained increases in the quantities they consumed over time where other SES groups did not).
Conclusion Socio-economic status was related independently to drinking patterns and there were indications that SES interacted differently with the different dimensions of drinking (quantity and frequency). For the most part, socio-economic status was not related independently to the experience of alcohol-related consequences once drinking patterns were accounted for. It was the lower-to-average SES groups that were at greater risk for drinking heavier quantities compared to other SES groups in the population.
References
- 1 Babor T., Caetano R., Casswell S., Edwards G., Giesbrecht N., Graham K. et al. Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity—Research and Public Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003.
- 2 Connor C., Broad J., Rehm J., Vander Hoorn S., Jackson R. The burden of death, disease, and disability due to alcohol in New Zealand. NZ Med J 2005; 118.
- 3 Arellano C., Chavex E., Deffenbacher J. Alcohol use and academic status among Mexican American and white non-Hispanic adolescents. Adolescence 1998; 33: 751.
- 4 Bloomfield K., Grittner U., Kramer S., Gmel G. Social inequalities in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems in the study countries of the EU concerted action ‘Gender, Culture and Alcohol Problems: A Multi-National Study’. Alcohol Alcohol 2006; 41: i26–i36.
- 5 Bobak M., McKee M., Rose R., Marmot M. Alcohol consumption in a national sample of the Russian population. Addiction 1999; 94: 857–66.
- 6 Casswell S., Pledger M., Hooper R. Socio-economic status and drinking patterns in young adults. Addiction 2003; 98: 601–10.
- 7 Dawson D. A., Grant B., Chou S., Pickering S. Sub-group variation in US drinking patterns: results of the 1992 National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey. J Subst Abuse 1995; 7: 331–4.
- 8 Droomers M., Schrijvers C., Stronks K., Van De Mheen D., Mackenbach J. Educational differences in excessive alcohol consumption: the role of psychosocial and material stressors. Prev Med 1999; 29: 1–10.
- 9 Droomers M., Schrijvers C., Casswell S., Mackenbach J. Occupational level of the father and alcohol consumption during adolescence; patterns and predictors. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2003; 57: 704–10.
- 10 Dooley D., Prause J. Underemployment and alcohol misuse in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (statistical data included). J Stud Alcohol 1998; 59: 669–80.
- 11 Elgar F., Roberts C., Parry-Langdon N., Boyce W. Income inequality and alcohol use: a multilevel analysis of drinking and drunkenness in adolescents in 34 countries. Eur J Public Health 2005; 15: 245–50.
- 12 Galea S., Ahern J., Rudenstine S., Vlahof D. Education inequality and use of cigarettes, alcohol and marijuana. Drug Alcohol Depend 2007; 90: S4–15.
- 13 Jose B., Van Oers H., Van De Mheen H., Garretsen H., Mackenbach J. Stressors and alcohol consumption. Alcohol Alcohol 2000; 35: 307–12.
- 14 Hammer T. Unemployment and use of drugs and alcohol among young people: a longitudinal study in the general population. Br J Addict 1992; 87: 1571–81.
- 15 Sutton M., Godfrey C. The Health of the Nation Targets for Alcohol: A Study of the Economic and Social Determinants of High Alcohol Consumption in Different Population Groups. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York; 1994.
- 16 Marmot M., Ryff C. D., Bumpass L. L., Shipley M., Marks N. F. Social inequalities in health: next questions and converging evidence. Soc Sci Med 1997; 44: 901–10.
- 17 Room R. Thinking about how social inequalities relate to alcohol and drug use and problems. 1st International Summer School on Inequalities and Addictions, Adelaide, South Australia, 25–27 February 2004.
- 18 Harrison L., Gardiner E. Do the rich really die young? Alcohol-related mortality and social class in Great Britain, 1988–94. Addiction 1999; 94: 1871–80.
- 19 Makela P., Valkonen T., Martelin T. Contribution of deaths related to alcohol use of socioeconomic variation in mortality: register based follow up study. BMJ 1997; 315: 211–6.
- 20 Makela P., Keskimaki I., Koskinen S. What underlies the high alcohol related mortality of the disadvantaged: high morbidity or poor survival? J Epidemiol Commun Health 2003; 57: 981–6.
- 21 Menvielle G., Kunst A., Stirbu I., Borrell C., Bopp M., Regidor E. et al. Socioeconomic inequalities in alcohol related cancer mortality among men: to what extent do they differ between Western European populations? Int J Cancer 2007; 121: 649–55.
- 22 Najman J., Williams G., Room R. Increasing socioeconomic inequalities in male cirrhosis of the liver mortality: Australia 1981–2002. Drug Alcohol Rev 2007; 26: 273–8.
- 23 Romelsjo A., Stenbacka M., Lundberg M., Upmark M. A population study of the association between hospitalization for alcoholism among employees in different socio-economic classes and the risk of mobility out of, or within, the workforce. Eur J Public Health 2004; 14: 53–7.
- 24 Terris M. Epidemiology of cirrhosis of the liver: national mortality data. Am J Public Health 1967; 57: 2076–88.
- 25 Makela P., Paljarvi T. Do consequences of a given pattern of drinking vary by socioeconomic status? A mortality and hospitalisation follow-up for alcohol-related causes of the Finnish Drinking Habits Survey. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2008; 62: 728–33.
- 26
Selin K.
Predicting alcohol-related harm by sociodemographic background: high prevalence versus high risk.
Contemp Drug Probl
2005; 32: 547–88.
10.1177/009145090503200404 Google Scholar
- 27 Habgood R., Casswell S., Pledger M., Bhatta K. Drinking in New Zealand: National Surveys Comparison 1995 and 2000. Auckland: Alcohol and Public Health Research Unit, University of Auckland; 2001.
- 28 Easton B. Taxing Alcoholic Beverages in New Zealand. Revised version of paper for ‘Thinking Drinking: Achieving Cultural Change by 2020? Melbourne, 21–23 February 2005. Available at: http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=641 (accessed 25 November 2009).
- 29 Huckle T., Pledger M., Casswell S. Trends in alcohol-related harms and offences in a liberalized alcohol environment. Addiction 2006; 101: 232–40.
- 30 Kypri K., Voas R., Langley J., Stephenson S., Begg D., Tippets A. et al. Minimum purchase age for alcohol and traffic crash injuries aming 15-to-19-year-olds in New Zealand. Am J Public Health 2006; 96: 126–31.
- 31 Guria J., Jones W., Leung J., Mara K. Alcohol in New Zealand road trauma. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2003; 2: 183–90.
- 32 Casswell S., Huckle T., Pledger M. Survey data need not underestimate alcohol consumption. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2002; 26: 1561–7.
- 33 Statistics New Zealand. Household Economic Survey Wellington. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand; 2004.
- 34 Wyllie A., Black S., Zhang J., Casswell S. Sample frame bias in telephone-based research in New Zealand. NZ Statist 1994; 29: 40–53.
- 35 Wyllie A., Zhang J. -F., Casswell S. Risk functions for frequency of alcohol-related negative consequences: New Zealand survey data. Addiction 2000; 95: 1821–32.
- 36 Statistics New Zealand. Ethnicity Papers. 2009. Available at: http://www.stats.govt.nz/reports/analytical-reports/review-measurement-of-ethnicity/classifications-and-issues.aspx (accessed 1 March 2010).
- 37
Nogueira M.
Othogonal contrasts: definitions and concepts.
Sci Agric
2004; 61: 118–24.Available at: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-90162004000100020 (accessed 10 October 2009).
10.1590/S0103-90162004000100020 Google Scholar
- 38 Statistics New Zealand. Labour Market Statistics 2006. Wellington; 2007. Available at: http://www.stats.govt.nz/publications/workknowledgeandskills/labour-market-statistics-2006.aspx (accessed 1 March 2010).
- 39 Room R. Stigma, social inequality and alcohol and drug use. Drug Alcohol Rev 2005; 24: 143–55.
- 40 Herttua K., Makela P., Martikainen P. Changes in alcohol-related mortality and its socioeconomic differences after a large reduction in alcohol prices: a natural experiment based on register data. Am J Epidemiol 2008; 168: 1110–18.
- 41 Gmel G. The effect of mode of data collection and of non-response on reported alcohol consumption: a split-sample study in Switzerland. Addiction 2000; 95: 123–34.
- 42 Lahaut V., Jansen H., Van De Mheen D., Garretsen H. Non-response bias in a sample survey on alcohol consumption. Alcohol Alcohol 2002; 37: 256–60.
- 43 Lemmens P., Tan E., Knibbe R. Bias due to non-response in a Dutch survey on alcohol consumption. Br J Addict 1988; 83: 1069–77.
- 44 Biener L., Garrett C., Gilpin E., Roman A., Currivan D. Consequences of declining survey response rates for smoking prevalence estimates. Am J Prev Med 2004; 27: 254–7.