Characterising smoking and smoking cessation behaviours by risk of alcohol dependence: a representative, cross-sectional study of adults in England between 2014-2021

Background: There is a strong shared association between smoking tobacco and drinking alcohol. This study aimed to compare smoking prevalence and smoking characteristics in drinkers who were versus were not at risk of alcohol dependence in England. Methods: We used cross-sectional data from a monthly, nationally representative survey of adults in England (weighted n=144,583) collected between 2014-2021. Smoking and smoking cessation attempt characteristics were regressed on to alcohol dependence (drinkers at risk versus not at risk), adjusting for survey year. Findings: Past-year smoking prevalence was 63¢3% (95% CI=59¢7-66¢8) among drinkers at risk of alcohol dependence compared with 18¢7% (95% CI=18¢4-18¢9) among those not at risk, and 19¢2% (95% CI=18¢8-19¢7) among non-drinkers. Among past-year smokers, drinkers at risk of alcohol dependence (versus not at risk) smoked more cigarettes per day (B=3¢0, 95% CI=2¢3-3¢8) and were more likely to smoke their first cigarette within 5 (versus >60) minutes of waking (OR=2¢81, 95% CI=2¢25-3¢51). Interpretation: In a representative sample of adults in England, a graded effect was observed where smoking prevalence increased with level of alcohol consumption. Past-year smokers at risk of alcohol dependence had higher levels of cigarette dependence than drinkers not at risk. Therefore, smokers at risk of alcohol dependence are a high priority group to target to reduce smoking prevalence as part of the NHS long-term plan. Funding: Cancer Research UK and the National Institute for Health Researc

Visual weight status misperceptions of men: Why overweight can look like a healthy weight

Overweight men often underestimate their weight status. Here, we examine whether underestimation occurs when visually judging the weight status of men and whether exposure to heavier body weights may be a cause of visual underestimation of male weight status. Participants systematically underestimated the weight status of overweight and obese men (Study 1) and participants reporting more frequent exposure to heavy male body weights were most likely to underestimate (Study 2). Experimental exposure to different body weights influenced underestimation of weight status (Study 3). Frequent exposure to heavier body weights may cause visual underestimation of the weight status of overweight men

Brief interventions for smoking and alcohol associated with the COVID-19 pandemic: a population survey in England

Background: Following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020 health care delivery underwent considerable changes. It is unclear how this may have affected the delivery of Brief Interventions (BIs) for smoking and alcohol. We examined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol in primary care in England and whether certain priority groups (e.g., less advantaged socioeconomic positions, or a history of a mental health condition) were differentially affected. // Methods: We used nationally representative data from a monthly cross-sectional survey in England between 03/2014 and 06/2022. Monthly trends in the receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol were examined using generalised additive models among adults who smoked in the past-year (weighted N = 31,390) and those using alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels (AUDIT score 38, weighted N = 22,386), respectively. Interactions were tested between social grade and the change in slope after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and results reported stratified by social grade. Further logistic regression models assessed whether changes in the of receipt of BIs for smoking and alcohol, respectively, from 12/2016 to 01/2017 and 10/2020 to 06/2022 (or 03/2022 in the case of BIs for alcohol), depended on history of a mental health condition. // Results: The receipt of smoking BIs declined from an average prevalence of 31.8% (95%CI 29.4–35.0) pre-March 2020 to 24.4% (95%CI 23.5–25.4) post-March 2020. The best-fitting model found that after March 2020 there was a 12-month decline before stabilising by June 2022 in social grade ABC1 at a lower level (~ 20%) and rebounding among social grade C2DE (~ 27%). Receipt of BIs for alcohol was low (overall: 4.1%, 95%CI 3.9–4.4) and the prevalence was similar pre- and post-March 2020. // Conclusions: The receipt of BIs for smoking declined following March 2020 but rebounded among priority socioeconomic groups of people who smoked. BIs for alcohol among those who use alcohol at increasing and higher risk levels were low and there was no appreciable change over time. Maintaining higher BI delivery among socioeconomic and mental health priority groups of smokers and increasing and higher risk alcohol users is important to support reductions in smoking and alcohol related inequalities

Associations between physical activity, sedentary behaviour, and alcohol consumption among UK adults: Findings from the Health Behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic (HEBECO) study

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic and attendant lockdowns have had a substantial negative effect on alcohol consumption and physical activity globally. Pre-pandemic evidence in the adult population suggests that higher levels of physical activity were associated with higher levels of drinking, but it is unclear how the pandemic may have affected this. Therefore, this study aims to assess the association between alcohol consumption and physical activity in a UK cohort established during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Analyses utilized data from the Health Behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic (HEBECO) study involving 2,057 UK adults (≥18 years). Participants completed self-report measures of alcohol consumption [frequency, quantity, frequency of heavy episodic drinking (HED) and AUDIT-C score] and physical activity [moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), frequency of muscle strengthening activity (MSA) and sedentary behaviour] between November 2020 and January 2021. Ordinal logistic regression models were conducted, adjusting for sociodemographic factors. Results Fifteen percent of the sample reported abstinence from drinking. Overall, 23.4% of participants drank ≥4 times/week, 13.9% drank more than 6 units/single drinking occasion (HED), 7.5% reported HED daily/almost daily and 4.2% scored ≥11 on AUDIT-C. MSA 3 days/ week compared with no MSA was significantly associated with higher odds of alcohol frequency [OR (95 CI%) = 1.41 (1.04–1.91)], quantity [OR (95 CI%) = 1.38 (1.02–1.87)], HED [OR (95 CI%) = 1.42 (1.05–1.94)] and possible dependence [OR (95 CI%) = 1.47 (1.05–2.06)]. The association of MVPA and sedentary behaviour with drinking measures was not significant (p>0.05). Conclusion In contrast with previous research, MSA rather than aerobic physical activity was associated with increased alcohol consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is conceivable that during lockdown while drinking was used as a coping strategy, limited opportunities for aerobic exercise made MSA a more convenient form of physical activity. To guide public health interventions, more research is required to examine the temporal relationship between different forms of physical activity and alcohol consumption

Youth drinking in decline: What are the implications for public health, public policy and public debate?

Youth drinking has declined across most high-income countries in the last 20 years. Although researchers and commentators have explored the nature and drivers of decline, they have paid less attention to its implications. This matters because of the potential impact on contemporary and future public health, as well as on alcohol policy-making. This commentary therefore considers how youth drinking trends may develop in future, what this would mean for public health, and what it might mean for alcohol policy and debate. We argue that the decline in youth drinking is well-established and unlikely to reverse, despite smaller declines and stabilising trends in recent years. Young people also appear to be carrying their lighter drinking into adulthood in at least some countries. This suggests we should expect large short- and long-term public health benefits. The latter may however be obscured in population-level data by increased harm arising from earlier, heavier drinking generations moving through the highest risk points in the life course. The likely impact of the decline in youth drinking on public and policy debate is less clear. We explore the possibilities using two model scenarios, the reinforcement and withdrawal models. In the reinforcement model, a ‘virtuous’ circle of falling alcohol consumption, increasing public support for alcohol control policies and apparent policy successes facilitates progressive strengthening of policy, akin to that seen in the tobacco experience. In the withdrawal model, policy-makers turn their attention to other problems, public health advocates struggle to justify proposed interventions and existing policies erode over time as industry actors reassert and strengthen their partnerships with government around alcohol policy. We argue that disconnects between the tobacco experience and the reinforcement model make the withdrawal model a more plausible scenario. We conclude by suggesting some tentative ways forward for public health actors working in this space

Do engagement and behavioural mechanisms underpin the effectiveness of the Drink Less app?

This is a process evaluation of a large UK-based randomised controlled trial (RCT) (n = 5602) evaluating the effectiveness of recommending an alcohol reduction app, Drink Less, compared with usual digital care in reducing alcohol consumption in increasing and higher risk drinkers. The aim was to understand whether participants’ engagement (‘self-reported adherence’) and behavioural characteristics were mechanisms of action underpinning the effectiveness of Drink Less. Self-reported adherence with both digital tools was over 70% (Drink Less: 78.0%, 95% CI = 77.6–78.4; usual digital care: 71.5%, 95% CI = 71.0–71.9). Self-reported adherence to the intervention (average causal mediation effect [ACME] = −0.250, 95% CI = −0.42, −0.11) and self-monitoring behaviour (ACME = −0.235, 95% CI = −0.44, −0.03) both partially mediated the effect of the intervention (versus comparator) on alcohol reduction. Following the recommendation (self-reported adherence) and the tracking (self-monitoring behaviour) feature of the Drink Less app appear to be important mechanisms of action for alcohol reduction among increasing and higher risk drinkers

Evaluating the Acceptability of the Drink Less App and the National Health Service Alcohol Advice Web Page:Qualitative Interview Process Evaluation

Background:The extent to which interventions are perceived as acceptable to users impacts engagement and efficacy.Objective:In this study, we evaluated the acceptability of (1) the smartphone app Drink Less (intervention) and (2) the National Health Service (NHS) alcohol advice web page (usual digital care and comparator) among adult drinkers in the United Kingdom participating in a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Drink Less app.Methods:A subsample of 26 increasing- and higher-risk drinkers (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score≥8) assigned to the intervention group (Drink Less; n=14, 54%; female: n=10, 71%; age: 22-72 years; White: n=9, 64%) or usual digital care group (NHS alcohol advice web page; n=12, 46%; female: n=5, 42%; age: 23-68 years: White: n=9, 75%) took part in semistructured interviews. The interview questions were mapped on to the 7 facets of acceptability according to the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. Alongside these constructs, we also included a question on perceived personal relevance, which previous research has linked to acceptability and engagement. Framework and thematic analysis of data was undertaken.Results:The Drink Less app was perceived as being ethical, easy, user-friendly, and effective for the period the app was used. Participants reported particularly liking the tracking and feedback sections of the app, which they reported increased personal relevance and which resulted in positive affect when achieving their goals. They reported no opportunity cost. Factors such as negative affect when not meeting goals and boredom led to disengagement in the longer term for some participants. The NHS alcohol advice web page was rated as being easy and user-friendly with no opportunity costs. However, the information presented was not perceived as being personally relevant or effective in changing drinking behavior. Most participants reported neutral or negative affect, most participants thought the alcohol advice web page was accessible, and some participants reported ethical concerns around the availability of suggested resources. Some participants reported that it had acted as a starting point or a signpost to other resources. Participants in both groups discussed motivation to change and contextual factors such as COVID-19 lockdowns, which influenced their perceived self-efficacy regardless of their assigned intervention.Conclusions:Drink Less appears to be an acceptable digital intervention among the recruited sample. The NHS alcohol advice web page was generally considered unacceptable as a stand-alone intervention among the recruited sample, although it may signpost and help people access other resources and interventions.</p

Evaluating the Acceptability of the Drink Less App and the National Health Service Alcohol Advice Web Page:Qualitative Interview Process Evaluation

Background:The extent to which interventions are perceived as acceptable to users impacts engagement and efficacy.Objective:In this study, we evaluated the acceptability of (1) the smartphone app Drink Less (intervention) and (2) the National Health Service (NHS) alcohol advice web page (usual digital care and comparator) among adult drinkers in the United Kingdom participating in a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of the Drink Less app.Methods:A subsample of 26 increasing- and higher-risk drinkers (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score≥8) assigned to the intervention group (Drink Less; n=14, 54%; female: n=10, 71%; age: 22-72 years; White: n=9, 64%) or usual digital care group (NHS alcohol advice web page; n=12, 46%; female: n=5, 42%; age: 23-68 years: White: n=9, 75%) took part in semistructured interviews. The interview questions were mapped on to the 7 facets of acceptability according to the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. Alongside these constructs, we also included a question on perceived personal relevance, which previous research has linked to acceptability and engagement. Framework and thematic analysis of data was undertaken.Results:The Drink Less app was perceived as being ethical, easy, user-friendly, and effective for the period the app was used. Participants reported particularly liking the tracking and feedback sections of the app, which they reported increased personal relevance and which resulted in positive affect when achieving their goals. They reported no opportunity cost. Factors such as negative affect when not meeting goals and boredom led to disengagement in the longer term for some participants. The NHS alcohol advice web page was rated as being easy and user-friendly with no opportunity costs. However, the information presented was not perceived as being personally relevant or effective in changing drinking behavior. Most participants reported neutral or negative affect, most participants thought the alcohol advice web page was accessible, and some participants reported ethical concerns around the availability of suggested resources. Some participants reported that it had acted as a starting point or a signpost to other resources. Participants in both groups discussed motivation to change and contextual factors such as COVID-19 lockdowns, which influenced their perceived self-efficacy regardless of their assigned intervention.Conclusions:Drink Less appears to be an acceptable digital intervention among the recruited sample. The NHS alcohol advice web page was generally considered unacceptable as a stand-alone intervention among the recruited sample, although it may signpost and help people access other resources and interventions.</p

Tributes to Family Law Scholars Who Helped Us Find Our Path

At some point after the virus struck, I had the idea that it would be appropriate and interesting to ask a number of experienced family law teachers to write a tribute about a more senior family law scholar whose work inspired them when they were beginning their careers. I mentioned this idea to some other long-term members of the professoriate, and they agreed that this could be a good project. So I reached out to some colleagues and asked them to participate. Many agreed to join the team. Some suggested other potential contributors, and some of these suggested faculty members also agreed to submit a tribute. The authors have written about a diverse group of distinguished scholars in the area of family law. We have included 12 scholars who have contributed substantially to the field, and they have also influenced those who have written about them here. The honored scholars and the tribute authors are as follows (organized alphabetically by the honoree): Homer H. Clark Jr. (1918-2015), by Ann Laquer Estin Cooper Davis, by Melissa MurrayPeggy Mary Ann Glendon, by June Carbone Herma Hill Kay (1934-2017), by Barbara A. Atwood Robert Levy, by Paul M. Kurtz Marygold (Margo) Shire Melli (1926-2018), by J. Thomas Oldham & Bruce M. Smyth Martha Minow, by Brian H. Bix Robert Mnookin, by Elizabeth S. Scott Twila Perry, by R.A. Lenhardt Dorothy E. Roberts, by Jessica Dixon Weaver Carol Sanger, by Solangel Maldonado Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, by Sacha M. Coupet Each colleague who participated in this project chose the scholar whose work he or she would celebrate. So, the list of those honored here is subjective and, to a certain extent, serendipitous. This Article is part of a Family Law Quarterly issue that also honors other pioneering contributors to the family law field. We hope to make this a continuing project and to have future opportunities to recognize the many scholars who have had a profound impact on their students – and on all of us – in addition to having an important impact on the development of the law. I trust the reader will find these tributes of interest