Andrew James Barnes1, E Richard Brown. 1. Department of Healthcare Policy and Research, Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine, Richmond, VA 23298-0430, USA. abarnes3@vcu.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding associations between binge drinking and occupation is important from economic and public health perspectives. OBJECTIVE: While unadjusted differences in binge drinking by occupation have been reported previously, this study tests these differences after adjusting for important common determinants. METHODS: To assess the relationship between occupation and binge drinking after adjusting for worker characteristics, a probit model was fit to data from 29,785 working-age respondents to the 2005 California Health Interview Survey. Unadjusted and adjusted marginal effects are reported. Professionals, the largest employed category, were the referent. RESULTS: Professionals had a binge drinking risk of 16.6%. Before adjustment, workers in several occupational groups had higher risk compared to professionals, including those in installation (15.2 percentage points higher; 95% CI: 9.2, 21.1), construction (14.8 percentage points higher; 95% CI: 10.4, 19.2), and sales (6.9 percentage points higher; 95% CI: 4.0, 9.9), while those without employment had a 6.6 point lower risk (95% CI: -8.4, -4.9). After adjustment, workers employed in installation were 6.7 points (95% CI: 1.8, 11.7), construction 4.8 points (95% CI: 1.0, 8.6), and salespersons 5.3 points (95% CI: 2.8, 7.7) more likely to binge drink relative to professionals. No significant adjusted differences in risk between professionals and those without a job were found. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates binge drinking varies significantly across occupations. Adjusting for worker characteristics accounted for much of the unadjusted relationship between employment in physically demanding occupations (e.g., installation, construction) and binge drinking. Distinguishing between occupation- and employee-level determinants of alcohol misuse may improve employee assistance programs and preventive services.
BACKGROUND: Understanding associations between binge drinking and occupation is important from economic and public health perspectives. OBJECTIVE: While unadjusted differences in binge drinking by occupation have been reported previously, this study tests these differences after adjusting for important common determinants. METHODS: To assess the relationship between occupation and binge drinking after adjusting for worker characteristics, a probit model was fit to data from 29,785 working-age respondents to the 2005 California Health Interview Survey. Unadjusted and adjusted marginal effects are reported. Professionals, the largest employed category, were the referent. RESULTS: Professionals had a binge drinking risk of 16.6%. Before adjustment, workers in several occupational groups had higher risk compared to professionals, including those in installation (15.2 percentage points higher; 95% CI: 9.2, 21.1), construction (14.8 percentage points higher; 95% CI: 10.4, 19.2), and sales (6.9 percentage points higher; 95% CI: 4.0, 9.9), while those without employment had a 6.6 point lower risk (95% CI: -8.4, -4.9). After adjustment, workers employed in installation were 6.7 points (95% CI: 1.8, 11.7), construction 4.8 points (95% CI: 1.0, 8.6), and salespersons 5.3 points (95% CI: 2.8, 7.7) more likely to binge drink relative to professionals. No significant adjusted differences in risk between professionals and those without a job were found. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates binge drinking varies significantly across occupations. Adjusting for worker characteristics accounted for much of the unadjusted relationship between employment in physically demanding occupations (e.g., installation, construction) and binge drinking. Distinguishing between occupation- and employee-level determinants of alcohol misuse may improve employee assistance programs and preventive services.
Authors: Robert A Matano; Stanley F Wanat; Darrah Westrup; Cheryl Koopman; Shelly D Whitsell Journal: J Behav Health Serv Res Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 1.505
Authors: Karen Chan Osilla; Steven P Zellmer; Mary E Larimer; Clayton Neighbors; G Alan Marlatt Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 2.582