Search

Has awareness of the alcoholic beverage warning label reached its maximum? This study tracks changes in the level of awareness among a sample of 7334 inner-city African-American gravidas seeking prenatal care between May 1989 and June 1993. Previously, we found that a significant increase in awareness of the warning label occurred in March 1990. In the current analysis over a 50-month period, the level of awareness continued to increase through December 1992 and then leveled off, suggesting a negatively accelerated growth function. The logistic function fitted to the awareness curve predicts that the upper limit of awareness in this population has been reached (the predicted upper limit being 81.5%). In addition a logit regression analysis showed that women who did not know about the warning label were more likely to be over 29 years of age. Heavier drinkers were 1.25 times more likely to be aware of the label. Among those drinkers who were not aware of the label, 30% drank at both conception and antenally, thus putting their fetus at high risk for alcohol-related birth defects.

Objective: We compared the impact of the Federal Alcoholic Beverage Warning Label on multiparae (women with at least one previous live birth) and nulliparae (women with no previous live births). The label, implemented on November 18, 1989, urges women not to drink during pregnancy because of the risk of birth defects. If multiparae drank during prior pregnancies, delivering apparently normal babies, we hypothesized that the warning might be less salient for them., Method: We studied 17,456 inner city black gravidas seen between September 1986 and September 1993 at one antenatal clinic. Time series analysis (ARIMA) examined trends in monthly means of antenatal drinking scores (alcohol consumption adjusted for weeks' gestation, age, parity and periconceptional drinking)., Results: For nulliparae (n = 7,349), reported drinking began to show a significant decline in June 1990, 7 months after the implementation of the warning label (t = 2.00, p < .04). In contrast, multiparae (n = 10,107) showed no change in reported drinking (t = 1.23) postlabel., Conclusions: Given previous results that multiparae drink more and that heavier drinkers are ignoring the warning label, these data are very distressing and suggests the importance of targeting multiparae for intensive prevention efforts.