Search

Introduction and Aims: Breathalyser estimate of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) is widely used as an objective intoxication measure, but is not always practical in nightlife contexts. This study uses in situ data collected in nightlife environments to explore how four measures of intoxication are related so as to inform the development of a more practical and reliable method of differentiating intoxication for people working in the night-time economy., Design and Methods: Nightlife patron interviews were conducted in five Australian cities. Participants completed demographic questions and were asked about current session (past 12 h) alcohol use, and four different measures of intoxication were assessed: BAC, participant's self-reported intoxication (0-10), interviewer rating of the participant's intoxication (0-10) and interviewer-rated number of the participants' of physical signs of intoxication., Results: A total of 7028 patrons were surveyed and n = 5273 included in analysis. Mean age was 23.9 years (SD = 6.36); 61.5% were male. There was a significant difference in occurrence of all observable intoxication symptoms across differing levels of BAC (P < 0.001). All visible symptoms became more common as intoxication increased, except for talking very quickly/talkative and giggly symptoms. As BAC levels increase, the extent of the disagreement between self-rated and interviewer-rated intoxication measures widens. Exhibiting four or more visible intoxication symptoms emerged as a reliable method for observers to identify intoxicated patrons., Discussion and Conclusions: As BAC increases, people become worse at estimating their own intoxication, but sober observers remain relatively accurate. Findings provide support for efforts to strengthen and enforce responsible service of alcohol., (© 2017 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs.)

Background: Negative physiological stimulation and sedation side effects are experienced by a significant proportion of consumers who consume alcohol mixed with energy drinks (AmED). Few studies have compared the frequency of side effects between sessions of AmED and sessions of alcohol only within-subject, and none have explored a dose relationship., Objectives: Explore the occurrence of self-reported physiological stimulant and sedative side effects between sessions of AmED and alcohol only, and at varying ED dosage levels within AmED sessions., Methods: A convenience sample of 2953 residents of New South Wales, Australia completed an online survey. N=731 AmED users reported daily caffeine intake, typical alcohol and AmED consumption, and past 12-month experience of physiological stimulation and sedation side effects during AmED and alcohol only sessions. Within-subject analyses compared occurrence of side effects between session types. Hierarchical binary logistic regression analyses explored the association of ED dose during AmED sessions with the experience of physiological side effects., Results: There were greater odds of most stimulant side effects, and lower odds of sedation side effects, during AmED sessions compared to alcohol only sessions. Compared to one ED, consumption of three or more EDs was significantly associated with the majority of both stimulant and alcohol intoxication side effects after controlling for demographics and consumption covariates., Conclusions: AmED is associated with perceived changes in physiological stimulant and sedation side effects of alcohol. Experience of side effects is positively associated with ED dosage. Future research should account for varying ED dosage, and reflect real world consumption levels., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims To evaluate how well people in the night-time economy can assess their own breath alcohol concentration (BrAC), in the context of a change in breath alcohol limits for driving. Methods We conducted a field study of 242 participants over 5 nights in the central business district of a university town in New Zealand. Participants completed a short survey, which included questions on their self-reported level of intoxication and the self-estimated BrAC. At the conclusion of the interview each participant was breath-tested. We compared actual and self-estimated BrAC using a scatter plot and multiple regression methods. Results The average BrAC error was 61.7 μg/l, meaning that on average participants overestimate their BrAC. Participants with a BrAC below 487 μg/l tended to overestimate their BrAC on average, and those with a BrAC above 487 μg/l tended to underestimate their BrAC on average. Regression results supported this observation, but also found that men who are not 'out on a typical night' overestimate their BrAC by more. Conclusions Drinkers in this naturalistic setting have little idea of their level of intoxication, as measured by BrAC. However, this uncertainty may be advantageous to public health outcomes, since if drinkers are uncertain about their level of intoxication relative to the legal limit, this may lead them to avoid drunk driving. Short Summary A field study of drinkers in the night-time economy of a New Zealand university town was conducted to evaluate how well drinkers can assess their breath alcohol concentration (BrAC). Drinkers in this setting inaccurately estimate their intoxication, and those with higher BrAC tended to underestimate their BrAC on average. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To evaluate how well people in the night-time economy can assess their own breath alcohol concentration (BrAC), in the context of a change in breath alcohol limits for driving. Methods: We conducted a field study of 242 participants over 5 nights in the central business district of a university town in New Zealand. Participants completed a short survey, which included questions on their self-reported level of intoxication and the self-estimated BrAC. At the conclusion of the interview each participant was breath-tested. We compared actual and self-estimated BrAC using a scatter plot and multiple regression methods. Results: The average BrAC error was 61.7 µg/l, meaning that on average participants overestimate their BrAC. Participants with a BrAC below 487 µg/l tended to overestimate their BrAC on average, and those with a BrAC above 487 µg/l tended to underestimate their BrAC on average. Regression results supported this observation, but also found that men who are not 'out on a typical night' overestimate their BrAC by more. Conclusions: Drinkers in this naturalistic setting have little idea of their level of intoxication, as measured by BrAC. However, this uncertainty may be advantageous to public health outcomes, since if drinkers are uncertain about their level of intoxication relative to the legal limit, this may lead them to avoid drunk driving. Short Summary: A field study of drinkers in the night-time economy of a New Zealand university town was conducted to evaluate how well drinkers can assess their breath alcohol concentration (BrAC). Drinkers in this setting inaccurately estimate their intoxication, and those with higher BrAC tended to underestimate their BrAC on average. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]