The importance of drinking outcome for overall mortality has been addressed by several authors (Barr et al., 1984; Feuerlein et al., 1994; Gerdner and Berglund, 1997; Smith et al., 1994; Taylor, 1994; Timko et al., 2006).
Finally, we assessed the impact of outlet availability on only a single alcohol outcome, i.e. frequency of drinking.
Adjustment for anthropometric variables was undertaken as they may confound associations of drinking behaviour and outcomes.
Calculation of injury outcomes (Equation 3) required an estimate of drinking pattern, which was based on frequency of binge drinking (defined as more than five standard drinks in one occasion) from the Danish Health and Morbidity Survey 2010.
Therefore, the primary outcome measure will be the AUDIT-C scale (composite measure of frequency of drinking, typical quantity of drinking on one occasion, and frequency of drinking five of more drinks on one occasion).
Finally, to examine whether episodes of heavier drinking may carry risk of later adverse outcomes in mothers who do not drink daily during pregnancy, the primary analyses were repeated using a 4-level variable of drinking in pregnancy separating out patterns (≥4 drinks in a day) and frequency (daily drinking involving an average of at least one drink per day) of drinking.
The association of drinking water arsenic and mortality outcome was investigated in a cohort of residents from Millard County, Utah.
A challenge in modeling consumption outcomes is to appropriately account for the distribution of drinking.
In this first study, to examine in detail the association of drinking with self-reported health in Russia we found striking patterns that differed, both according to different measures of drinking behaviour and outcome (self-reported physical versus mental health).
†Any category of drinking.
However, no significant reductions in the more distal outcome of recent drinking behaviour were found following the campaign among heavy or light drinkers.
