Anticipating problem alcohol use developmentally from childhood into middle adulthood: what have we learned?

This commentary reviews and comments on six major longitudinal studies from the United States, Great Britain and Finland, that test predictive models of drinking and problem drinking behavior across a developmental span of one to two generations. The large Ns, in two instances involving population samples, and the broad and study-overlapping variable domains make this collection of studies unique and of special interest vis-à-vis the issue of cross-study replicability of findings. Significant cross-study commonalities are noted, involving the strong cross-study replicability of an undercontrol/externalizing domain as both a childhood and adolescent predictor of problem drinking outcomes in early to middle adulthood, the relative autostability of heavy and problem use of alcohol over intervals of time as long as a generation, the utility of early drinking behavior as an index for later drinking outcomes, the relative parallelism (with some exceptions) of male and female findings, albeit with greater predictability of male over female drinking outcomes and the relatively tighter relational networks of drinking and other behavioral characteristics for males. This impressive group of quasi-replications also points the field to address several next-step questions, including: (i) the need to parse the undercontrol/externalizing domain to identify those subcomponential process characteristics that are causal to heavy and problem drinking outcomes; (ii) the need to develop models that will handle more effectively the uneven relationships of negative activity to drinking outcomes, in some instances operating protectively, in other instances operating as risk factors; (iii) the need for more carefully articulated, theoretically driven process models that will specify the ordering, developmental saliency and mediational properties of risk and protective factors as they come on line; and (iv) the need for more developmental testing of trait/context interaction models of problem drinking development.NIAAA R37 AA07065 and R01 AA12217Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64509/1/#164, Zucker 2008, Anticipating problem alcohol use developmentally from childhood into middle adulthood.pd

Social Environmental Influences on the Development and Resolution of Alcohol Problems

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/65364/1/j.1530-0277.2006.00080.x.pd

A Public Health Research Agenda for Managing Infodemics: Methods and Results of the First WHO Infodemiology Conference

Background: An infodemic is an overflow of information of varying quality that surges across digital and physical environments during an acute public health event. It leads to confusion, risk-taking, and behaviors that can harm health and lead to erosion of trust in health authorities and public health responses. Owing to the global scale and high stakes of the health emergency, responding to the infodemic related to the pandemic is particularly urgent. Building on diverse research disciplines and expanding the discipline of infodemiology, more evidence-based interventions are needed to design infodemic management interventions and tools and implement them by health emergency responders. Objective: The World Health Organization organized the first global infodemiology conference, entirely online, during June and July 2020, with a follow-up process from August to October 2020, to review current multidisciplinary evidence, interventions, and practices that can be applied to the COVID-19 infodemic response. This resulted in the creation of a public health research agenda for managing infodemics. Methods: As part of the conference, a structured expert judgment synthesis method was used to formulate a public health research agenda. A total of 110 participants represented diverse scientific disciplines from over 35 countries and global public health implementing partners. The conference used a laddered discussion sprint methodology by rotating participant teams, and a managed follow-up process was used to assemble a research agenda based on the discussion and structured expert feedback. This resulted in a five-workstream frame of the research agenda for infodemic management and 166 suggested research questions. The participants then ranked the questions for feasibility and expected public health impact. The expert consensus was summarized in a public health research agenda that included a list of priority research questions. Results: The public health research agenda for infodemic management has five workstreams: (1) measuring and continuously monitoring the impact of infodemics during health emergencies; (2) detecting signals and understanding the spread and risk of infodemics; (3) responding and deploying interventions that mitigate and protect against infodemics and their harmful effects; (4) evaluating infodemic interventions and strengthening the resilience of individuals and communities to infodemics; and (5) promoting the development, adaptation, and application of interventions and toolkits for infodemic management. Each workstream identifies research questions and highlights 49 high priority research questions. Conclusions: Public health authorities need to develop, validate, implement, and adapt tools and interventions for managing infodemics in acute public health events in ways that are appropriate for their countries and contexts. Infodemiology provides a scientific foundation to make this possible. This research agenda proposes a structured framework for targeted investment for the scientific community, policy makers, implementing organizations, and other stakeholders to consider