Michael Livingston1, Sarah Callinan2. 1. Drug Policy Modelling Program, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia, Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, Turning Point, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia. 2. Centre for Alcohol Policy Research, Turning Point, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia, Eastern Health Clinical School, Monash University, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Population surveys typically produce underestimates of alcohol consumption of approximately 40%-50%. Researchers often undertake a uniform adjustment of survey data to weight estimates such that they match measures of consumption based on sales or tax data. This study explored whether there are differential rates of underestimation in self-reported consumption data by comparing data from two major population surveys in Australia. METHOD: The study compared survey estimates of consumption for population subgroups from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS, using graduated-frequency questions, coverage = 55%) and the Australian arm of the International Alcohol Control Study (IAC, using within-location beverage-specific questions, coverage = 86%). Analyses examined age- and sex-based subgroups as well as subgroups based on rates of heavy episodic drinking. RESULTS: The graduated-frequency questions (NDSHS) underestimated consumption by 33% compared with the beverage-specific within-location questions (IAC). Underestimates were more marked for young males (40%) and middle-aged females (49%) and less marked for young females (15%) and older females (NDSHS estimates were 19% higher than IAC). Respondents who engaged infrequently or not at all in heavy episodic drinking underestimated their consumption by more (proportionally) than those who did (43% vs. 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Underreporting of alcohol consumption in population surveys using standard graduated-frequency questions is not uniform across either demographic or consumption-based subgroups of the population. More robust approaches to adjusting survey data to match objective measures of consumption are required.
OBJECTIVE: Population surveys typically produce underestimates of alcohol consumption of approximately 40%-50%. Researchers often undertake a uniform adjustment of survey data to weight estimates such that they match measures of consumption based on sales or tax data. This study explored whether there are differential rates of underestimation in self-reported consumption data by comparing data from two major population surveys in Australia. METHOD: The study compared survey estimates of consumption for population subgroups from the National Drug Strategy Household Survey (NDSHS, using graduated-frequency questions, coverage = 55%) and the Australian arm of the International Alcohol Control Study (IAC, using within-location beverage-specific questions, coverage = 86%). Analyses examined age- and sex-based subgroups as well as subgroups based on rates of heavy episodic drinking. RESULTS: The graduated-frequency questions (NDSHS) underestimated consumption by 33% compared with the beverage-specific within-location questions (IAC). Underestimates were more marked for young males (40%) and middle-aged females (49%) and less marked for young females (15%) and older females (NDSHS estimates were 19% higher than IAC). Respondents who engaged infrequently or not at all in heavy episodic drinking underestimated their consumption by more (proportionally) than those who did (43% vs. 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Underreporting of alcohol consumption in population surveys using standard graduated-frequency questions is not uniform across either demographic or consumption-based subgroups of the population. More robust approaches to adjusting survey data to match objective measures of consumption are required.
Authors: Mark van der Maas; Norman Giesbrecht; Gina Stoduto; Heather Orpana; Robert Geneau; Robert Mann Journal: Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Teresa T Fung; Kenneth J Mukamal; Eric B Rimm; Haakon E Meyer; Walter C Willett; Diane Feskanich Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2019-09-01 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Jason M Jennings; Michael A Williams; Daniel L Levy; Roseann M Johnson; Catherine L Eschen; Douglas A Dennis Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Carol B Cunradi; William R Ponicki; Harrison J Alter; Raul Caetano; Christina Mair; Juliet Lee Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Sonsoles Fuentes; Usama Bilal; Iñaki Galán; Joan R Villalbí; Albert Espelt; Marina Bosque-Prous; Manuel Franco; Mariana Lazo Journal: Eur J Public Health Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 3.367
Authors: Heidi E Hutton; Catherine R Lesko; Ximin Li; Carol B Thompson; Bryan Lau; Sonia Napravnik; Kenneth H Mayer; W Christopher Mathews; Mary E McCaul; Heidi M Crane; Rob J Fredericksen; Karen L Cropsey; Michael Saag; Katerina Christopoulos; Geetanjali Chander Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2019-06
Authors: Tim Stockwell; Jinhui Zhao; Thomas Greenfield; Jessica Li; Michael Livingston; Yang Meng Journal: Addiction Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 6.526
Authors: Zhe Wang; Han Chen; Traci M Bartz; Lawrence F Bielak; Daniel I Chasman; Mary F Feitosa; Nora Franceschini; Xiuqing Guo; Elise Lim; Raymond Noordam; Melissa A Richard; Heming Wang; Brian Cade; L Adrienne Cupples; Paul S de Vries; Franco Giulanini; Jiwon Lee; Rozenn N Lemaitre; Lisa W Martin; Alex P Reiner; Stephen S Rich; Pamela J Schreiner; Stephen Sidney; Colleen M Sitlani; Jennifer A Smith; Ko Willems van Dijk; Jie Yao; Wei Zhao; Myriam Fornage; Sharon L R Kardia; Charles Kooperberg; Ching-Ti Liu; Dennis O Mook-Kanamori; Michael A Province; Bruce M Psaty; Susan Redline; Paul M Ridker; Jerome I Rotter; Eric Boerwinkle; Alanna C Morrison Journal: Circ Genom Precis Med Date: 2020-06-08