The role of off-licence outlets in binge drinking: A survey of drinking practices last Saturday night among young adults in Australia

Introduction and Aims.: To examine where young adults purchase their alcohol on Saturday nights and how this relates to binge drinking. Design and Methods.: This study used an online survey of a non-probability-based quota sample of 2013 Australians aged 18-30 years who had consumed alcohol in the past year. Participants who purchased alcohol from off-licence outlets the Saturday night before answering the survey were compared with participants who purchased only from on-licence outlets with regard to how much they drank (binge drinking was defined as five or more drinks), how much they spent on alcohol, where they drank, their risk of an alcohol use disorder and other demographic factors. Results.: Of participants who drank the previous Saturday night (n=1106), 46% bought alcohol only from off-licence outlets (e.g. bottle shops), 19% bought from both off-licence and on-licence outlets (e.g. clubs, bars), and 23% bought only from on-licence outlets. Participants who bought alcohol from off-licence outlets were equally likely to binge-drink as participants who bought only from on-licence outlets (B=-0.02, P=0.912), but they drank more cheaply and usually drank at home. Participants who bought alcohol from both off-licence and on-licence outlets were more likely to binge-drink (B=1.39, P<0.001), drank both at home and in public places, were at higher risk of an alcohol use disorder and were more likely to have used stimulants the previous Saturday night. Discussion and Conclusions.: Off-licence outlets were a major source of alcohol in this sample of young Australian adults, many of whom binge-drank in private homes. © 2013 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs

Typologies of alcohol consumption on a saturday night among young adults

Background: Alcohol policies and interventions seek to curtail risky single-occasion drinking (RSOD) and the negative health and public order consequences. Yet RSOD behaviors are not easily defined since people can drink excessively at a variety of locations and drink a range of products. The current study examines the presence and correlates of different typologies or classes of drinking behavior on 1 Saturday night to facilitate a nuanced policy response to harmful drinking. Methods: Data from 1,883 adults aged 18 to 30 were collected using an online survey. Latent class analysis was used to categorize respondents into mutually exclusive classes based on the quantity, type, and unit cost of alcohol consumed plus location of alcohol consumption on the past Saturday night. Significant correlates and predictors of latent class membership were then identified using regression analysis. Results: Seven distinct classes were identified that represent qualitatively distinct profiles of Saturday night drinking behavior among young adults. Multivariate analyses indicated that alcohol risk (measured using the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test), age, and recent (past 12 months) stimulant use were strong predictors of heavier drinking. The heaviest drinkers also consumed some of the cheapest alcohol and consumed alcohol at multiple locations over the course of the night. Conclusions: Given the large degree of heterogeneity among drinking behaviors, policy makers need to be cognizant that alcohol type and drinking location-specific policies may be less effective in targeting some groups of the population. © 2014 by the Research Society on Alcoholism

Recreational drug use and binge drinking: Stimulant but not cannabis intoxication is associated with excessive alcohol consumption

Abstract: Introduction and Aims: Binge drinking is elevated among recreational drug users, but it is not clear whether this elevation is related to intoxication with recreational drugs. We examined whether stimulant intoxication and cannabis intoxication were associated with binge drinking among young adults. Design and Methods: An online survey of 18- to 30-year-old Australians who had drunk alcohol in the past year (n=1994) were quota sampled for: (i) past year ecstasy use (n=497); (ii) past year cannabis (but not ecstasy) use (n=688); and (iii) no ecstasy or cannabis use in the past year (alcohol-only group, n=809). Binge drinking last Saturday night (five or more drinks) was compared for participants who took stimulants (ecstasy, cocaine, amphetamine or methamphetamine) or cannabis last Saturday night. Results: Ecstasy users who were intoxicated with stimulants (n=91) were more likely to binge drink than ecstasy users who were not (n=406) (89% vs. 67%), after adjusting for demographics, poly-drug use and intoxication with cannabis and energy drinks (adjusted odds ratio 3.1, P=0.007), drinking a median of 20 drinks (cf. 10 drinks among other ecstasy users). Cannabis intoxication was not associated with binge drinking among cannabis users (57% vs. 55%) or ecstasy users (73% vs. 71%). Binge drinking was more common in all of these groups than in the alcohol-only group (34%). Discussion and Conclusions: Stimulant intoxication, but not cannabis intoxication, is associated with binge drinking among young adults, compounding already high rates of binge drinking among people who use these drugs. © 2014 Australasian Professional Society on Alcohol and other Drugs

Cost-effectiveness of counselling as a treatment option for methamphetamine dependence

© 2015 Informa UK Ltd. Introduction and aims: Illicit methamphetamine (MA) use is an important public health concern. There is a dearth of knowledge about effective and cost-effective treatments for methamphetamine (MA) dependence in Australia. This article evaluates the cost-effectiveness of counselling as a treatment option for illicit MA use compared with no treatment option. Design and methods: Data are from 501 individuals recruited into Methamphetamine Treatment Evaluation Study (MATES). The population of MA users from MATES is extrapolated to a total number of 1000 MA users in the intervention group (counselling treatment) and control group (non-treatment group). A decision analytic model is developed that examines the costs and health outcomes [measures as quality adjusted life years (QALYs) gained] for the treatment and comparison group over a 3-year period. A societal perspective is adopted and model inputs are subject to sensitivity and uncertainty analysis to test the robustness of results to parameter variability. Results are discounted by using 3% discount rate and expressed in 2011 Australian dollars. Results: The incremental cost-effectiveness analysis suggests that counselling is a dominant health care intervention, i.e. saves money and is more effective than a do nothing intervention. The incremental difference in costs is -AU$18.36 million (95$22.80 million to -AU$14.31 million) and the incremental difference in QALY is 107 (95$63832 per QALY in the Australian society. The results of the sensitivity analysis show that the ICER is most sensitive to change in five major inputs: baseline utility, utility at 3 months, dealing crime costs, property crime costs and fraud crime costs. Discussion and Conclusions: The economic evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of counselling for MA dependence, as a first cost-effectiveness study to assess psychosocial treatment options for MA dependence, shows that greater investment in this cost-effective strategy will produce significant cost-savings and improve health outcomes as well as improve a lot of externality issues associated with drug use