Bridget Freisthler1, Uwe Wernekinck2. 1. College of Social Work, The Ohio State University, 340C Stillman Hall, 1947 College Rd. N, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. Electronic address: freisthler.19@osu.edu. 2. College of Social Work, The Ohio State University, 1947 College Rd. N, Columbus, OH 43210, USA. Electronic address: wernekinck.1@osu.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Alcohol outlet density and drinking behaviors have been assessed based on where people live, but exposure may differ based on where people spend time. We assessed the relationship between alcohol outlet density (using three measures of geographic availability), frequency of use, and continued volume of alcohol among parents. Parents are a unique population of drinkers where the risk for harm to others can be higher as they are caring for minor children. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional telephone and web-based survey of 1599 parents in 2015 across 30 cities in California. Participants provided information on drinking, residential addresses, and locations of daily activities. We created three measures of alcohol availability using residential neighborhoods, convex hull polygons, and destination nodes. Data were analyzed using zero-inflated negative binomial models. RESULTS: Density of bars in residential neighborhoods were related to more frequent drinking (b = 0.0139, 95% CI = 0.0016, 0.0261) and higher continued volume (b = 0.0295, 95% CI = 0.0067, 0.0522). Density of bars (b = 0.0070, 95% CI = 0.0019, 0.0121) and restaurants (b = 0.0018, 95% CI = 0.0003, 0.0033) in destination nodes were related to drinking a higher continued volume of alcohol. Higher off-premise outlet density was related to a lower continued volume (b = -0.0026, 95% CI = -0.0049, -0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Outlet densities in residential neighborhood and destination nodes are related to frequency of drinking and continued volume of alcohol. Future work should seek to determine why and how residential neighborhoods and nodes are related to alcohol use behaviors and if they differ for parents compared to other adults.
BACKGROUND: Alcohol outlet density and drinking behaviors have been assessed based on where people live, but exposure may differ based on where people spend time. We assessed the relationship between alcohol outlet density (using three measures of geographic availability), frequency of use, and continued volume of alcohol among parents. Parents are a unique population of drinkers where the risk for harm to others can be higher as they are caring for minor children. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional telephone and web-based survey of 1599 parents in 2015 across 30 cities in California. Participants provided information on drinking, residential addresses, and locations of daily activities. We created three measures of alcohol availability using residential neighborhoods, convex hull polygons, and destination nodes. Data were analyzed using zero-inflated negative binomial models. RESULTS: Density of bars in residential neighborhoods were related to more frequent drinking (b = 0.0139, 95% CI = 0.0016, 0.0261) and higher continued volume (b = 0.0295, 95% CI = 0.0067, 0.0522). Density of bars (b = 0.0070, 95% CI = 0.0019, 0.0121) and restaurants (b = 0.0018, 95% CI = 0.0003, 0.0033) in destination nodes were related to drinking a higher continued volume of alcohol. Higher off-premise outlet density was related to a lower continued volume (b = -0.0026, 95% CI = -0.0049, -0.0002). CONCLUSIONS: Outlet densities in residential neighborhood and destination nodes are related to frequency of drinking and continued volume of alcohol. Future work should seek to determine why and how residential neighborhoods and nodes are related to alcohol use behaviors and if they differ for parents compared to other adults.
Authors: Sarah Foster; Georgina Trapp; Paula Hooper; Wendy H Oddy; Lisa Wood; Matthew Knuiman Journal: Health Place Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 4.078
Authors: Michael P Cameron; William Cochrane; Kellie McNeill; Pania Melbourne; Sandra L Morrison; Neville Robertson Journal: Aust N Z J Public Health Date: 2012-11-08 Impact factor: 2.939