Search

Background Heavy drinking in early adulthood among Blacks, but not Whites, has been found to be associated with more deleterious health outcomes, lower labor market success and lower educational attainment at mid-life. This study analysed psychosocial pathways underlying racial differences in the impact of early heavy alcohol use on occupational and educational attainment at mid-life. Methods Outcomes in labor market participation, occupational prestige and educational attainment were measured in early and mid-adulthood. A mixture model was used to identify psychosocial classes that explain how race-specific differences in the relationship between drinking in early adulthood and occupational outcomes in mid-life operate. Data came from Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults, a longitudinal epidemiologic study. Results Especially for Blacks, heavy drinking in early adulthood was associated with a lower probability of being employed in mid-life. Among employed persons, there was a link between heavy drinking for both Whites and Blacks and decreased occupational attainment at mid-life. We grouped individuals into three distinct distress classes based on external stressors and indicators of internally generated stress. Blacks were more likely to belong to the higher distressed classes as were heavy drinkers in early adulthood. Stratifying the data by distress class, relationships between heavy drinking, race and heavy drinking--race interactions were overall weaker than in the pooled analysis. Conclusions Disproportionate intensification of life stresses in Blacks renders them more vulnerable to long-term effects of heavy drinking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

High-quality research demonstrating a lack of effectiveness may facilitate the 'de-adoption' of ineffective health services. However, there has been little debate on the optimal design for ineffectiveness research-studies exploring the research hypothesis that an intervention is ineffective. The aim of this study was to explore investigators' preferences for trial design for ineffectiveness research. We conducted a mixed-methods online survey with principle investigators identified from clinicaltrials.gov. A vignette described researchers planning a trial to test a widely used intervention they hypothesised was ineffective. One multiple-choice question asked whether a superiority trial or equivalence trial design was favoured, and one free-response question asked about the reasons for that choice. Free-response answers were analysed using content analysis to identify related reasons. 139 participants completed the survey (completion rate 37.5%). Overall, 56.8% favoured superiority trials, 27.3% favoured equivalence trials and 15.8% were unsure. Reasons identified for favouring superiority trials were: (1) evidence of superiority should be required to justify active treatment, (2) superiority trials are more familiar, (3) placebo should not be the comparator in equivalence trials and (4) superiority trials require smaller sample sizes. Reasons identified for favouring equivalence trials were: (1) negative superiority trials represent a lack of evidence of effectiveness, not evidence of ineffectiveness and (2) the research hypothesis should not be the same as the null hypothesis. A minority of experienced researchers favour equivalence trials for ineffectiveness research, and misconceptions and lack of familiarity with equivalence trials may be contributing factors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)