Search

Introduction: Estimates of alcohol consumption in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System are generally lower than those in other surveys of U.S. adults. This study compares the estimates of adults' drinking patterns and the distribution of drinks consumed by average daily alcohol consumption from 2 nationwide telephone surveys., Methods: The 2014-2015 National Alcohol Survey (n=7,067) and the 2015 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (n=408,069) were used to assess alcohol consumption among adults (≥18 years), analyzed in 2019. The weighted prevalence of binge-level drinking and the distribution of drinks consumed by average daily alcohol consumption (low, medium, high) were assessed for the previous 12 months using the National Alcohol Survey and the previous 30 days using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, stratified by respondents' characteristics., Results: The prevalence of binge-level drinking in a day was 26.1% for the National Alcohol Survey; the binge drinking prevalence was 17.4% for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The prevalence of high average daily alcohol consumption among current drinkers was 8.2% for the National Alcohol Survey, accounting for 51.0% of total drinks consumed, and 3.3% for the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, accounting for 27.7% of total drinks consumed., Conclusions: National Alcohol Survey yearly prevalence estimates of binge-level drinking in a day and high average daily consumption were consistently greater than Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System monthly binge drinking and high average daily consumption prevalence estimates. When planning and evaluating prevention strategies, the impact of different survey designs and methods on estimates of excessive drinking and related harms is important to consider., (Copyright © 2020 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Excessive alcohol use cost the U.S. $223.5 billion in 2006. Given economic shifts in the U.S. since 2006, more-current estimates are needed to help inform the planning of prevention strategies., Methods: From March 2012 to March 2014, the 26 cost components used to assess the cost of excessive drinking in 2006 were projected to 2010 based on incidence (e.g., change in number of alcohol-attributable deaths) and price (e.g., inflation rate in cost of medical care). The total cost, cost to government, and costs for binge drinking, underage drinking, and drinking while pregnant were estimated for the U.S. for 2010 and allocated to states., Results: Excessive drinking cost the U.S. $249.0 billion in 2010, or about $2.05 per drink. Government paid for $100.7 billion (40.4%) of these costs. Binge drinking accounted for $191.1 billion (76.7%) of costs; underage drinking $24.3 billion (9.7%) of costs; and drinking while pregnant $5.5 billion (2.2%) of costs. The median cost per state was $3.5 billion. Binge drinking was responsible for >70% of these costs in all states, and >40% of the binge drinking-related costs were paid by government., Conclusions: Excessive drinking cost the nation almost $250 billion in 2010. Two of every $5 of the total cost was paid by government, and three quarters of the costs were due to binge drinking. Several evidence-based strategies can help reduce excessive drinking and related costs, including increasing alcohol excise taxes, limiting alcohol outlet density, and commercial host liability., (Copyright © 2015 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Background: Excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for an average of 80,000 deaths in the U.S. each year and cost $223.5 billion ($1.90/drink) in 2006. Comparable state estimates of this cost are needed to help inform prevention strategies., Purpose: The goal of the study was to estimate the economic cost of excessive drinking by state for 2006., Methods: From December 2011 to November 2012, an expert panel developed methods to allocate component costs from the 2006 national estimate to states for (1) total; (2) government; (3) binge drinking; and (4) underage drinking costs. Differences in average state wages were used to adjust productivity losses., Results: In 2006, the median state cost of excessive drinking was $2.9 billion (range: $31.9 billion [California] to $419.6 million [North Dakota]); the median cost per drink, $1.91 (range: $2.74 [Utah] to $0.88 [New Hampshire]); and the median per capita cost, $703 (range: $1662 [District of Columbia] to $578 [Utah]). A median of 42% of state costs were paid by government (range: 45.0% [Utah] to 37.0% [Mississippi]). Binge drinking was responsible for a median of 76.6% of state costs (range: 83.1% [Louisiana] to 71.6% [Massachusetts]); underage drinking, a median of 11.2% of state costs (range: 20.0% [Wyoming] to 5.5% [District of Columbia])., Conclusions: Excessive drinking cost states a median of $2.9 billion in 2006. Most of the costs were due to binge drinking and about $2 of every $5 were paid by government. The Guide to Community Preventive Services has recommended several evidence-based strategies-including increasing alcohol excise taxes, limiting alcohol outlet density, and commercial host liability-that can help reduce excessive alcohol use and the associated economic costs., (© 2013 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Background: Excessive alcohol consumption causes premature death (average of 79,000 deaths annually); increased disease and injury; property damage from fire and motor vehicle crashes; alcohol-related crime; and lost productivity. However, its economic cost has not been assessed for the U.S. since 1998., Purpose: To update prior national estimates of the economic costs of excessive drinking., Methods: This study (conducted 2009-2010) followed U.S. Public Health Service Guidelines to assess the economic cost of excessive alcohol consumption in 2006. Costs for health care, productivity losses, and other effects (e.g., property damage) in 2006 were obtained from national databases. Alcohol-attributable fractions were obtained from multiple sources and used to assess the proportion of costs that could be attributed to excessive alcohol consumption., Results: The estimated economic cost of excessive drinking was $223.5 billion in 2006 (72.2% from lost productivity, 11.0% from healthcare costs, 9.4% from criminal justice costs, and 7.5% from other effects) or approximately $1.90 per alcoholic drink. Binge drinking resulted in costs of $170.7 billion (76.4% of the total); underage drinking $24.6 [corrected] billion; and drinking during pregnancy $5.2 billion. The cost of alcohol-attributable crime was $73.3 billion. The cost to government was $94.2 billion (42.1% of the total cost), which corresponds to about $0.80 per alcoholic drink consumed in 2006 (categories are not mutually exclusive and may overlap)., Conclusions: On a per capita basis, the economic impact of excessive alcohol consumption in the U.S. is approximately $746 per person, most of which is attributable to binge drinking. Evidence-based strategies for reducing excessive drinking should be widely implemented., (Copyright © 2011 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Persons who drive after drinking or ride with drinking drivers are at increased risk of motor vehicle crash. Although alcohol is involved in 40% of fatal motor vehicle crashes yearly, there exist few systems to monitor alcohol-impaired driving. In this study we compare driver- and passenger-based estimates of the prevalence of alcohol-impaired driving., Design: A random-digit-dialing telephone survey of the United States. Participants were adults aged 18 or older who were English- or Spanish-speaking from 5238 households (response rate = 56.1%)., Results: From the 4603 respondents who reported driving in the preceding 30 days, we estimate that there were 126 million drinking-driving episodes in the United States in 1994. From the 4380 passengers in the preceding 30 days, we estimate 191 million episodes. Three percent of respondents self-reported as drinking drivers (4.8% of males and 1.3% of females) and 4.9% as passengers of drinking drivers. Drinking drivers were more likely to be passengers of drinking drivers (44% versus 4% of nondrinking drivers). Drinking drivers were also more than twice as likely to report drinking daily, and only one half as likely to report always wearing their safety belts., Conclusion: Passengers who report riding with a drinking driver may provide an important estimate of the prevalence of drinking driving. Passengers of drinking drivers represent a high-risk group that is not considered in most prevention efforts. Because being a passenger of a drinking driver is not illegal, it may be an easier topic for clinicians to broach than drinking and driving.

Background: There were 783 recreational boating fatalities in the United States in 1994. One contributor to this toll is alcohol-influenced operation of boats. Our study objective was to determine the prevalence of alcohol-influenced motor boat operation, and describe its relationship to demographic factors and other risk behaviors., Methods: In 1994, a randomly dialed national telephone survey contacted 5238 adult respondents who reported on their operation of motor boats, alcohol use, and other potential injury risk behaviors. Data were weighted to obtain national estimates and percentages., Results: Of 597 respondents who operated a motor boat in 1994, 31% (206 respondents) reported doing so at least once while alcohol-influenced. Alcohol-influenced operation of a motor boat was significantly more likely among males, individuals between 25 and 34 years of age, and those with greater than a college education. Alcohol-influenced motor boat operation was also more common among those who drove motor vehicles while alcohol-influenced, and those who drove a motor vehicle without using a seat belt., Conclusions: To decrease alcohol-influenced boating, new strategies should be developed. Strategies used to decrease drinking and driving motor vehicles may prove adaptable to preventing alcohol-influenced boating. More effective means of monitoring alcohol-influenced boating is needed. Alcohol use by passengers on boats should not be overlooked as a problem.

Context: Seventy percent of U.S. residential fire deaths occur in homes without a working smoke detector. To help prevent residential fire deaths, many programs have distributed or installed detectors in unprotected homes. Because persons receiving a detector may not install it and because detector batteries require annual replacement, the enduring effectiveness of these programs may be questioned., Objective: We evaluated the long-term functional status of smoke detectors distributed to high-risk households in eight areas of Minnesota, Cherokee County (North Carolina), and Oklahoma City (Oklahoma)., Design: Cross-sectional., Setting: Home visits were made to check the detectors that were distributed 3 to 4 years earlier., Participants: Randomly selected households from the three detector promotion programs. MAIN OUT-COME MEASURE: At least one working smoke detector., Results: Participation rates ranged from 72% to 82%. The percentage of evaluation households with at least one working detector ranged from 58% in Oklahoma to 73% in North Carolina. In 76% of households with nonworking detectors, the batteries were either missing or disconnected. When batteries in nonworking detectors were replaced, 83% of the detectors regained function., Conclusions: Future programs should consider distributing detectors that do not require annual battery changes or find effective ways to ensure that batteries are routinely replaced. Programs should also provide each household with the number of detectors needed to meet the most current recommended standard of the National Fire Protection Agency. The evaluation's participation rates support the practicality of unannounced home visits to evaluate home injury prevention programs in high-risk groups.