Search

Aims: In recent years, studies have indicated that consumers of alcohol mixed with energy drink (AmED) are more likely to drink heavily and experience more negative consequences than consumers who avoid these beverages. Although researchers have identified a number of plausible hypotheses that explain how alcohol-energy drink co-ingestion could cause greater alcohol consumption, there has been no postulation about reverse causal relations. This paper identifies several plausible hypotheses for the observed associations between AmED consumption and greater alcohol consumption, and provides initial evidence for one such hypothesis suggesting that heavy drinking may be a determinant of AmED use.Method: Data collected from 511bar patrons were used to examine the plausibility of one of the proposed hypotheses, i.e., AmED is an artifact of heavy drinking. Associations between the consumption of an assortment of alcoholic beverage types and total alcohol consumption were examined at the event-level, to assess whether AmED is uniquely related with greater alcohol consumption.Results: Increased alcohol consumption was associated with greater odds of consuming most alcoholic beverage types; this association was not unique to AmED.Conclusions: Results support the overlooked hypothesis that AmED use is an artifact of heavy drinking. Thus, AmED consumption may be a consequence or marker of heavier drinking. Much of the existing research on alcoholic beverage types is limited in its ability to implicate any specific type of drink, including AmED, as a cause of increased alcohol consumption and related harm. More rigorous study designs are needed to examine causal relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Technology has transformed our lifestyles in dramatic and significant ways, including new and less expensive options for recruiting study participants. This study examines cost and participant differences between two recruitment sources, Craigslist (CL), and print newspapers (PNs). This paper also reviewed and compared studies involving clinical trials published since 2010 that recruited participants using CL alone or in combination with other methods.Method: Secondary data analyses from a parent study involving a randomized controlled trial of a mail-based intervention to promote self-change with problem drinkers.Results: Significant differences were found between CL and PN participants on most demographic and pretreatment drinking variables. While all participants had AUDIT scores suggestive of an alcohol problem and reported drinking at high-risk levels, CL participants had less severe drinking problem histories, were considerably younger, and had a higher socioeconomic status than PN participants. The total advertising costs for the 65 CL ads ($275) were significantly less than the 69 PN ads ($33, 311). The recruiting cost per eligible participant was vastly less expensive using CL ($1.46) compared to print newspaper ads ($116.88).Conclusions: Using CL is a viable recruitment method for soliciting participants, particularly those that are younger, for alcohol intervention studies. It is also less expensive than newspaper ads. When CL participants were recruited, they reported being slightly more confident to change their drinking than PN participants. Limitations of using CL are discussed, including that some initial ad responders gave inconsistent answers to similar questions and a few tried to enter the study more than once. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]