Every week, we poll the members of the editorial board on a timely and divisive topic. This week, the question is:
Texas ranks among the 10 states that have done the least to prevent alcohol-related traffic fatalities, according to a report released this week by the National Transportation Safety Board. Our news story on this explained that Texas has one of highest proportions of drunken driving deaths in the country, yet has implemented only four of the federal agency's 11 recommendations to eliminate "hard core" drunken driving. For details, go here. Given these facts, what are the most important dditional measures - if any - do you think we should be advocating for when the Texas Legislature convenes in January?
Here are their responses:
Keven Ann Willey, editor of the editorial page:
Frankly, I was surprised to learn that Texas employs only four of the recommended 11 sanctions against DWI, especially given the enormity of the problem in this state. As our news story the other day pointed out, fully 40 percent of traffic accidents statewide involved a drunk driver - the fifth highest in the country. That's huge. Just last week, we read about a man who was convicted of a double murder while driving drunk in Denton County. This guy had three previous DWI convictions (which means he probably actually had many more DWI issues, given that the state's permissive plea bargain laws allow for many DWI-related offenses to occur before they actually get prosecuted as an actual DWI offense).What was this guy doing behind the wheel in the first place?
Unfortunately the online version of our story doesn't include the detail that was actually in the paper about what Texas does and doesn't do. In shorthand, the state reportedly does four things well: revoke licenses, impose heightened penalties for high blood-alcohol levels (over 0.15), allow judges to weigh past DWI offenses when assessing penalties for new offenses, and sanction hard-core offenders especially harshly.
Among the actions the state hasn't taken that the safety board thinks it should, in shorthand: employ more sobriety checkpoints, impound more vehicles or use interlock devices more commonly, eliminate diversion programs, impose penalties for driving with a 0.08 blood-alcohol level, develop a "hot sheet" program to identify frequent offenders, develop other confinement alternatives, outlaw plea bargaining, etc....
I think the highest priority should be focusing on repeat offenders. We need to eliminate the difficulty of taking these ticking time bombs off the road. Judges should mandate interlock devices and impound cars of itinerate alcohol abusers more frequently. Developing a "hot sheet" program to identify frequent offenders - sort of like a terrorist watch list at airports - makes tremendous sense to me.
I'm even sympathetic to an idea put forth by one of our volunteer Voices columnists - a retired Dallas cop named Scotty Holt - at a workshop we held with them earlier this week. He argued for making blood-alcohol tests mandatory for anybody pulled over on suspicion of DWI. This would be a bit more costly on the front end; blood tests for all. But it would be much cheaper - and more sensible - in the long run by eliminating much of the legal maneuvering and gamesmanship surrounding DWI prosecutions. It would provide unambiguous evidence - either your blood alcohol was over the limit or not - of your status. It should be a much more black-and-white, fact-based process. So do the blood work, get the answer, take your penalty (or walk if your level was OK). Get it done. Quit with the diversionary tactics. Move on.
READ FULL ARTICLE HERE
Showing posts with label drinking. Show all posts
Showing posts with label drinking. Show all posts
Friday, November 19, 2010
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
15% U.S. Adults Binge Drinking - CDC
Vital Signs: Binge Drinking Among High School Students and Adults --- United States, 2009
Early Release
October 5, 2010
ABSTRACT
Background: Binge drinking was responsible for more than half of the estimated 79,000 deaths and two thirds of the estimated 2.3 million years of potential life lost as a result of excessive drinking each year in the United States during 2001--2005.
Methods: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed data from the 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) on the prevalence of binge drinking (defined as consuming four or more alcoholic drinks per occasion for women and five or more for men during the past 30 days) among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years who responded to the BRFSS survey by landline or cellular telephone. Data also were analyzed from the 2009 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) on the prevalence of current alcohol use (consuming at least one alcoholic drink during the 30 days before the survey), and binge drinking (consuming five or more alcoholic drinks within a couple of hours during the 30 days before the survey) among U.S. high school students, and on the prevalence of binge drinking among high school students who reported current alcohol use.
Results: Among U.S. adults, the prevalence of reported binge drinking was 15.2% among landline respondents. Binge drinking was more common among men (20.7%), persons aged 18--24 years (25.6%) and 25−34 years (22.5%), whites (16.0%), and persons with annual household incomes of $75,000 or more (19.3%). Among cellular telephone respondents, the overall prevalence of binge drinking (20.6%) was higher than among landline respondents, although the demographic patterns of binge drinking were similar. Prevalence among high school students was 41.8% for current alcohol use, 24.2% for binge drinking, and 60.9% for binge drinking among students who reported current alcohol use.
Conclusions: Binge drinking is common among U.S. adults, particularly those with higher household incomes, and among high school students. Binge drinking estimates for adults were higher in the cellular telephone sample than in the landline sample. Most youths who reported current alcohol use also reported binge drinking.
Implications for Public Health Practice: Binge drinking is a serious problem among adults and youths that can be reduced by implementation of evidence-based interventions.
Excessive alcohol use was the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States (1), and it annually accounted for, on average, approximately 79,000 deaths* per year and 2.3 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) during 2001--2005.† Binge drinking was responsible for more than half of those deaths and two thirds of the YPLL (2). Healthy People 2010 called for reducing the overall prevalence of binge drinking among adults and youths.§ For this report, data from landline and cellular telephone respondents to the 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) were used to estimate the prevalence of binge drinking among adults in the United States, and data from the 2009 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) were used to estimate the prevalence of current alcohol use and binge drinking among high school students in the United States.
Methods
BRFSS is a state-based telephone survey of civilian, noninstitutionalized U.S. adults that collects information on many leading health conditions and health risk behaviors, including binge drinking. BRFSS surveys are administered to households with landlines in all states and the District of Columbia (DC). In 2009, all 50 states (except South Dakota and Tennessee) and DC began administering up to 10% of their total state completed surveys to cellular telephone users. Annually, respondents who report consuming any alcoholic beverages are asked how many times they engaged in binge drinking, defined as consuming four or more alcoholic drinks per occasion for women and five or more drinks per occasion for men during the preceding 30 days. The prevalence of binge drinking was calculated by dividing the total number of respondents who reported at least one binge drinking episode during the preceding 30 days by the total number of BRFSS respondents. Respondents who refused to answer, had a missing answer, or who answered "don't know/not sure" were excluded from the analysis.
In 2009, the median Council of American Survey and Research Organizations (CASRO) response rate for the landline BRFSS was 52.9% (range among states: 37.9%--66.9%), and the median CASRO cooperation rate was 75.0% (range: 55.5%--88.0%). The preliminary median CASRO response rate for the cellular telephone BRFSS was 37.6% (range among states: 20.5%--60.3%), and the preliminary median CASRO cooperation rate was 76.0% (range: 47.7%--90.9%). A total of 412,005 landline respondents and 15,578 cellular telephone respondents were included in the analysis. Data collected by landline were weighted to the age, sex, and racial/ethnic distribution of each state's adult population and to the respondent's probability of selection. Cellular telephone data were unweighted, but were age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. Census standard population.
The biennial national YRBS, a component of CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, estimates the prevalence of health risk behaviors among U.S. high school students. The 2009 national survey obtained cross-sectional data representative of public- and private-school students in grades 9--12 in the 50 states and DC (3). Students completed an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire that included questions about alcohol use. Students from 158 schools completed 16,460 questionnaires. The school response rate was 81%, the student response rate was 88%, and the overall response rate was 71%. After quality control measures were applied, data from 16,410 students were available for analysis.
Current alcohol use is defined in YRBS as having had at least one drink of alcohol on at least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey, and binge drinking is defined as having had five or more drinks of alcohol within a couple of hours on at least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey. The prevalence of current alcohol use was calculated by dividing the total number of respondents who reported current alcohol use by the total number of respondents, and the prevalence of binge drinking was calculated by dividing the total number of respondents who reported binge drinking by the total number of respondents. The prevalence of binge drinking among current drinkers was calculated by dividing the total number of binge drinkers by the total number of current drinkers. Respondents who had missing information were excluded from the analysis. YRBS data were weighted to adjust for school and student nonresponse and oversampling of black and Hispanic students.
BRFSS Results
Landline telephone respondents. The overall prevalence of binge drinking among adult BRFSS landline respondents was 15.2% (Table 1). Binge drinking prevalence among men (20.7%) was twice that for women (10.0%). Binge drinking also was most common among persons aged 18--24 years (25.6%) and 25--34 years (22.5%), and then gradually declined with increasing age. The prevalence of binge drinking among landline respondents who were non-Hispanic whites (16.0%) and Hispanics (16.3%) was significantly higher than the prevalence for non-Hispanic blacks (10.3%). Landline respondents with some college education (16.4%) and college graduates (15.3%) were most likely to report binge drinking, whereas those who did not graduate from high school were the least likely to report binge drinking (12.1%). Binge drinking prevalence also increased with household income and was most commonly reported by respondents with annual household incomes of $75,000 or more (19.3%).
By state, the prevalence of binge drinking ranged from 6.8% (Tennessee) to 23.9% (Wisconsin) (Figure 1). States with the highest prevalence of adult binge drinking were located in the Midwest, North Central Plains, and lower New England. Additional high-prevalence states included Alaska, Delaware, DC, and Nevada.
Cellular telephone respondents. In 2009, the overall, age-adjusted prevalence of binge drinking among adult BRFSS cellular telephone respondents was 20.6% (Table 2). Binge drinking prevalence among men (26.5%) was almost twice that for women (14.5%). Binge drinking also was most common among persons aged 18--24 years (35.4%) and 25--34 years (30.8%), and then gradually declined with increasing age. The prevalence of binge drinking among cellular telephone respondents who were non-Hispanic whites (22.3%), other non-Hispanics (including American Indians/Alaska Natives and Asians/Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders) (19.9%), and Hispanics (17.5%) was significantly higher than the prevalence for non-Hispanic blacks (13.9%). Binge drinking prevalence increased with household income and was reported most commonly by respondents with annual household incomes of $75,000 or more (25.4%).
YRBS Results
In 2009, the prevalence of current alcohol use and of binge drinking among high school students was 41.8% and 24.2%, respectively (Table 3). The prevalence of binge drinking was similar among boys (25.0%) and girls (23.4%). Non-Hispanic white (27.8%) and Hispanic (24.1%) students had a higher prevalence of reported binge drinking than non-Hispanic black students (13.7%). Binge drinking prevalence increased with grade level; prevalence among 12th grade students (33.5%) was more than twice that among 9th grade students (15.3%).
The prevalence of binge drinking among high school students who reported current alcohol use was 60.9% (64.1% among boys and 57.5% among girls) (Table 3). Non-Hispanic white (64.8%) and Hispanic (59.3%) students who reported current alcohol use had a higher prevalence of binge drinking than non-Hispanic black (43.5%) students who reported current alcohol use. The prevalence of binge drinking among students who reported current alcohol use increased with grade level, from 51.1% in 9th grade students to 67.4% in 12th grade students.
From 1993 to 2009, the prevalence of binge drinking among adults did not decrease among men or women. Among high school students, the prevalence of binge drinking decreased among boys, but has remained about the same among girls (Figure 2).
Conclusions and Comment
The results in this report indicate that binge drinking is common among U.S. adults and high school students. Binge drinking among adults was slightly higher in 2009 (15.2%) than in 1993 (14.2%).¶ Although binge drinking continued to be common among all population groups, it was most common among males, persons aged 18--34 years, and those with annual household incomes of $75,000 or more. Estimates of binge drinking were higher for the cellular telephone sample (20.6% overall) than the landline sample (15.2% overall), particularly among younger adults. By state, compared to 1993, the prevalence of binge drinking among adults in 2009 was significantly greater in 20 states, was significantly less in two states, and stayed about the same in 29 states (CDC, unpublished data, 2010). The prevalence of current alcohol use and binge drinking among high school students was lower in 2009 (41.8% and 24.2%) than in 1993 (48.0% and 30.0%); however, the differences in these measures were significant among boys, but not girls.**Current alcohol use and binge drinking increased with grade. The majority of high school students who report current alcohol use also report binge drinking across all demographic groups, except black students. Among adults, 29% of those who report current drinking also report binge drinking (4).
The higher prevalence of binge drinking among adult males, whites, young adults, and persons with higher household incomes has been reported before (5). The high prevalence partly could reflect that binge drinking, unlike other leading health risks (e.g., smoking and obesity), has not been widely recognized as a health risk or subjected to intense prevention efforts (4). The differences in binge drinking among population groups might reflect differences in state and local laws that affect the price, availability, and marketing of alcoholic beverages (6). Estimates of binge drinking from the cellular telephone sample were higher than from the landline sample, although the demographic patterns of binge drinking were similar. Higher estimates of binge drinking have been reported previously among cellular telephone respondents relative to landline respondents in a small number of states (CDC, unpublished data, 2010), but have not been reported nationally. During the last half of 2009, an estimated 24.5% of U.S. households had only cellular telephones.†† As the U.S. population increasingly adopts cellular telephones in place of landlines, the BRFSS survey will need to incorporate cellular telephone respondents to help assure representativeness, particularly when measuring behaviors that are common among younger adults.
The high prevalence of binge drinking among high school students also is consistent with previous reports (7), and affirms that most youths who drink alcohol do so to the point of intoxication. The similarities in the distribution of binge drinking among youths and adults by various demographic characteristics (e.g., race and ethnicity) also are consistent with the strong relationship between youth and adult drinking in states (8), which is influenced strongly by state alcohol control policies (6).
The findings in this report are subject to at least six limitations. First, BRFSS and YRBS data are self-reported. Among adults, alcohol consumption generally, and excessive drinking in particular, are underreported in surveys because of recall, social desirability, and nonresponse bias (9). A recent study found that BRFSS identifies only 22% to 32% of presumed alcohol consumption in states based on alcohol sales (10). Second, an increasing proportion of youths and young adults aged 18--34 years use cellular telephones exclusively (11); therefore, landline surveys of persons in this age group might not be representative of this population. Third, the results of the cellular telephone survey were unweighted, but results of the landline survey were weighted to represent the U.S. adult population. However, the distribution of cellular telephone respondents by various demographic characteristics (e.g., sex and race/ethnicity) was quite similar to the composition of the general population, and the cellular telephone data were age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. Census standard population. Fourth, response rates for both the landline and cellular telephone BRFSS were low, which increases the risk for response bias. Fifth, YRBS defines binge drinking for boys and girls as five or more drinks within a couple of hours, and the prevalence of binge drinking among girls would likely have been higher if it were defined using a four-drink threshold, consistent with national recommendations. Finally, YRBS data apply only to youths who attend school, and therefore are not representative of all persons in this age group. Nationwide, in 2007, of persons aged 16--17 years, approximately 4% were not enrolled in a high school program and had not completed high school.§§
To reduce the adverse impact of binge drinking on individuals and communities, health professionals and community leaders should consider implementing interventions that have been proven in scientific studies to reduce binge drinking among adults and youths. Evidence-based interventions for individuals include those recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force¶¶ and evidence-based interventions for communities include those recommended in the Guide to Community Preventive Services.*** Local leaders need to carefully consider which of these interventions would be most acceptable, feasible, and effective in their communities; other innovative solutions also might be found for tackling this problem and further research is encouraged to find such solutions. The findings in this report also support the need to improve public health surveillance for binge drinking among adults by increasing the number of cellular telephone respondents to the BRFSS.
Article Source
Early Release
October 5, 2010
ABSTRACT
Background: Binge drinking was responsible for more than half of the estimated 79,000 deaths and two thirds of the estimated 2.3 million years of potential life lost as a result of excessive drinking each year in the United States during 2001--2005.
Methods: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention analyzed data from the 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) on the prevalence of binge drinking (defined as consuming four or more alcoholic drinks per occasion for women and five or more for men during the past 30 days) among U.S. adults aged ≥18 years who responded to the BRFSS survey by landline or cellular telephone. Data also were analyzed from the 2009 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) on the prevalence of current alcohol use (consuming at least one alcoholic drink during the 30 days before the survey), and binge drinking (consuming five or more alcoholic drinks within a couple of hours during the 30 days before the survey) among U.S. high school students, and on the prevalence of binge drinking among high school students who reported current alcohol use.
Results: Among U.S. adults, the prevalence of reported binge drinking was 15.2% among landline respondents. Binge drinking was more common among men (20.7%), persons aged 18--24 years (25.6%) and 25−34 years (22.5%), whites (16.0%), and persons with annual household incomes of $75,000 or more (19.3%). Among cellular telephone respondents, the overall prevalence of binge drinking (20.6%) was higher than among landline respondents, although the demographic patterns of binge drinking were similar. Prevalence among high school students was 41.8% for current alcohol use, 24.2% for binge drinking, and 60.9% for binge drinking among students who reported current alcohol use.
Conclusions: Binge drinking is common among U.S. adults, particularly those with higher household incomes, and among high school students. Binge drinking estimates for adults were higher in the cellular telephone sample than in the landline sample. Most youths who reported current alcohol use also reported binge drinking.
Implications for Public Health Practice: Binge drinking is a serious problem among adults and youths that can be reduced by implementation of evidence-based interventions.
Excessive alcohol use was the third leading preventable cause of death in the United States (1), and it annually accounted for, on average, approximately 79,000 deaths* per year and 2.3 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) during 2001--2005.† Binge drinking was responsible for more than half of those deaths and two thirds of the YPLL (2). Healthy People 2010 called for reducing the overall prevalence of binge drinking among adults and youths.§ For this report, data from landline and cellular telephone respondents to the 2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) were used to estimate the prevalence of binge drinking among adults in the United States, and data from the 2009 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) were used to estimate the prevalence of current alcohol use and binge drinking among high school students in the United States.
Methods
BRFSS is a state-based telephone survey of civilian, noninstitutionalized U.S. adults that collects information on many leading health conditions and health risk behaviors, including binge drinking. BRFSS surveys are administered to households with landlines in all states and the District of Columbia (DC). In 2009, all 50 states (except South Dakota and Tennessee) and DC began administering up to 10% of their total state completed surveys to cellular telephone users. Annually, respondents who report consuming any alcoholic beverages are asked how many times they engaged in binge drinking, defined as consuming four or more alcoholic drinks per occasion for women and five or more drinks per occasion for men during the preceding 30 days. The prevalence of binge drinking was calculated by dividing the total number of respondents who reported at least one binge drinking episode during the preceding 30 days by the total number of BRFSS respondents. Respondents who refused to answer, had a missing answer, or who answered "don't know/not sure" were excluded from the analysis.
In 2009, the median Council of American Survey and Research Organizations (CASRO) response rate for the landline BRFSS was 52.9% (range among states: 37.9%--66.9%), and the median CASRO cooperation rate was 75.0% (range: 55.5%--88.0%). The preliminary median CASRO response rate for the cellular telephone BRFSS was 37.6% (range among states: 20.5%--60.3%), and the preliminary median CASRO cooperation rate was 76.0% (range: 47.7%--90.9%). A total of 412,005 landline respondents and 15,578 cellular telephone respondents were included in the analysis. Data collected by landline were weighted to the age, sex, and racial/ethnic distribution of each state's adult population and to the respondent's probability of selection. Cellular telephone data were unweighted, but were age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. Census standard population.
The biennial national YRBS, a component of CDC's Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, estimates the prevalence of health risk behaviors among U.S. high school students. The 2009 national survey obtained cross-sectional data representative of public- and private-school students in grades 9--12 in the 50 states and DC (3). Students completed an anonymous, self-administered questionnaire that included questions about alcohol use. Students from 158 schools completed 16,460 questionnaires. The school response rate was 81%, the student response rate was 88%, and the overall response rate was 71%. After quality control measures were applied, data from 16,410 students were available for analysis.
Current alcohol use is defined in YRBS as having had at least one drink of alcohol on at least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey, and binge drinking is defined as having had five or more drinks of alcohol within a couple of hours on at least 1 day during the 30 days before the survey. The prevalence of current alcohol use was calculated by dividing the total number of respondents who reported current alcohol use by the total number of respondents, and the prevalence of binge drinking was calculated by dividing the total number of respondents who reported binge drinking by the total number of respondents. The prevalence of binge drinking among current drinkers was calculated by dividing the total number of binge drinkers by the total number of current drinkers. Respondents who had missing information were excluded from the analysis. YRBS data were weighted to adjust for school and student nonresponse and oversampling of black and Hispanic students.
BRFSS Results
Landline telephone respondents. The overall prevalence of binge drinking among adult BRFSS landline respondents was 15.2% (Table 1). Binge drinking prevalence among men (20.7%) was twice that for women (10.0%). Binge drinking also was most common among persons aged 18--24 years (25.6%) and 25--34 years (22.5%), and then gradually declined with increasing age. The prevalence of binge drinking among landline respondents who were non-Hispanic whites (16.0%) and Hispanics (16.3%) was significantly higher than the prevalence for non-Hispanic blacks (10.3%). Landline respondents with some college education (16.4%) and college graduates (15.3%) were most likely to report binge drinking, whereas those who did not graduate from high school were the least likely to report binge drinking (12.1%). Binge drinking prevalence also increased with household income and was most commonly reported by respondents with annual household incomes of $75,000 or more (19.3%).
By state, the prevalence of binge drinking ranged from 6.8% (Tennessee) to 23.9% (Wisconsin) (Figure 1). States with the highest prevalence of adult binge drinking were located in the Midwest, North Central Plains, and lower New England. Additional high-prevalence states included Alaska, Delaware, DC, and Nevada.
Cellular telephone respondents. In 2009, the overall, age-adjusted prevalence of binge drinking among adult BRFSS cellular telephone respondents was 20.6% (Table 2). Binge drinking prevalence among men (26.5%) was almost twice that for women (14.5%). Binge drinking also was most common among persons aged 18--24 years (35.4%) and 25--34 years (30.8%), and then gradually declined with increasing age. The prevalence of binge drinking among cellular telephone respondents who were non-Hispanic whites (22.3%), other non-Hispanics (including American Indians/Alaska Natives and Asians/Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders) (19.9%), and Hispanics (17.5%) was significantly higher than the prevalence for non-Hispanic blacks (13.9%). Binge drinking prevalence increased with household income and was reported most commonly by respondents with annual household incomes of $75,000 or more (25.4%).
YRBS Results
In 2009, the prevalence of current alcohol use and of binge drinking among high school students was 41.8% and 24.2%, respectively (Table 3). The prevalence of binge drinking was similar among boys (25.0%) and girls (23.4%). Non-Hispanic white (27.8%) and Hispanic (24.1%) students had a higher prevalence of reported binge drinking than non-Hispanic black students (13.7%). Binge drinking prevalence increased with grade level; prevalence among 12th grade students (33.5%) was more than twice that among 9th grade students (15.3%).
The prevalence of binge drinking among high school students who reported current alcohol use was 60.9% (64.1% among boys and 57.5% among girls) (Table 3). Non-Hispanic white (64.8%) and Hispanic (59.3%) students who reported current alcohol use had a higher prevalence of binge drinking than non-Hispanic black (43.5%) students who reported current alcohol use. The prevalence of binge drinking among students who reported current alcohol use increased with grade level, from 51.1% in 9th grade students to 67.4% in 12th grade students.
From 1993 to 2009, the prevalence of binge drinking among adults did not decrease among men or women. Among high school students, the prevalence of binge drinking decreased among boys, but has remained about the same among girls (Figure 2).
Conclusions and Comment
The results in this report indicate that binge drinking is common among U.S. adults and high school students. Binge drinking among adults was slightly higher in 2009 (15.2%) than in 1993 (14.2%).¶ Although binge drinking continued to be common among all population groups, it was most common among males, persons aged 18--34 years, and those with annual household incomes of $75,000 or more. Estimates of binge drinking were higher for the cellular telephone sample (20.6% overall) than the landline sample (15.2% overall), particularly among younger adults. By state, compared to 1993, the prevalence of binge drinking among adults in 2009 was significantly greater in 20 states, was significantly less in two states, and stayed about the same in 29 states (CDC, unpublished data, 2010). The prevalence of current alcohol use and binge drinking among high school students was lower in 2009 (41.8% and 24.2%) than in 1993 (48.0% and 30.0%); however, the differences in these measures were significant among boys, but not girls.**Current alcohol use and binge drinking increased with grade. The majority of high school students who report current alcohol use also report binge drinking across all demographic groups, except black students. Among adults, 29% of those who report current drinking also report binge drinking (4).
The higher prevalence of binge drinking among adult males, whites, young adults, and persons with higher household incomes has been reported before (5). The high prevalence partly could reflect that binge drinking, unlike other leading health risks (e.g., smoking and obesity), has not been widely recognized as a health risk or subjected to intense prevention efforts (4). The differences in binge drinking among population groups might reflect differences in state and local laws that affect the price, availability, and marketing of alcoholic beverages (6). Estimates of binge drinking from the cellular telephone sample were higher than from the landline sample, although the demographic patterns of binge drinking were similar. Higher estimates of binge drinking have been reported previously among cellular telephone respondents relative to landline respondents in a small number of states (CDC, unpublished data, 2010), but have not been reported nationally. During the last half of 2009, an estimated 24.5% of U.S. households had only cellular telephones.†† As the U.S. population increasingly adopts cellular telephones in place of landlines, the BRFSS survey will need to incorporate cellular telephone respondents to help assure representativeness, particularly when measuring behaviors that are common among younger adults.
The high prevalence of binge drinking among high school students also is consistent with previous reports (7), and affirms that most youths who drink alcohol do so to the point of intoxication. The similarities in the distribution of binge drinking among youths and adults by various demographic characteristics (e.g., race and ethnicity) also are consistent with the strong relationship between youth and adult drinking in states (8), which is influenced strongly by state alcohol control policies (6).
The findings in this report are subject to at least six limitations. First, BRFSS and YRBS data are self-reported. Among adults, alcohol consumption generally, and excessive drinking in particular, are underreported in surveys because of recall, social desirability, and nonresponse bias (9). A recent study found that BRFSS identifies only 22% to 32% of presumed alcohol consumption in states based on alcohol sales (10). Second, an increasing proportion of youths and young adults aged 18--34 years use cellular telephones exclusively (11); therefore, landline surveys of persons in this age group might not be representative of this population. Third, the results of the cellular telephone survey were unweighted, but results of the landline survey were weighted to represent the U.S. adult population. However, the distribution of cellular telephone respondents by various demographic characteristics (e.g., sex and race/ethnicity) was quite similar to the composition of the general population, and the cellular telephone data were age-adjusted to the 2000 U.S. Census standard population. Fourth, response rates for both the landline and cellular telephone BRFSS were low, which increases the risk for response bias. Fifth, YRBS defines binge drinking for boys and girls as five or more drinks within a couple of hours, and the prevalence of binge drinking among girls would likely have been higher if it were defined using a four-drink threshold, consistent with national recommendations. Finally, YRBS data apply only to youths who attend school, and therefore are not representative of all persons in this age group. Nationwide, in 2007, of persons aged 16--17 years, approximately 4% were not enrolled in a high school program and had not completed high school.§§
To reduce the adverse impact of binge drinking on individuals and communities, health professionals and community leaders should consider implementing interventions that have been proven in scientific studies to reduce binge drinking among adults and youths. Evidence-based interventions for individuals include those recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force¶¶ and evidence-based interventions for communities include those recommended in the Guide to Community Preventive Services.*** Local leaders need to carefully consider which of these interventions would be most acceptable, feasible, and effective in their communities; other innovative solutions also might be found for tackling this problem and further research is encouraged to find such solutions. The findings in this report also support the need to improve public health surveillance for binge drinking among adults by increasing the number of cellular telephone respondents to the BRFSS.
Article Source
Friday, October 16, 2009
This 'buddy' doesn't want you driving drunk
LI man builds barroom breathalyzers
A serious problem on Long Island and all across our nation today is drunk driving. People become intoxicated at bars and pubs then get in their cars and drive home, putting not only themselves at risk but everyone else on the road too. What if there were a machine in bars to let people know if they should drive or not?
While visiting Europe two years ago, John Berlingieri of Holbrook saw a product that calculated a person's blood alcohol content, the factor that determines whether someone is legally drunk. Berlingieri thought it would be a no-brainer to bring this product stateside, and in February 2008 Alco-Buddy was born.
Alco-Buddy, which is in the process of being patented, resembles a small vending machine. For a price — often $2 — a bar patron can exhale into Alco-Buddy through a straw dispensed by the machine. Alco-Buddy calculates the customer's BAC and displays that level for a few seconds — in green numbers if the level is legal and in red if it is above the legal limit of 0.08.
Since making his first machines in Bohemia, Berlingieri has begun selling them to bars and other establishments that serve alcohol. Thirty companies in over 15 states have ordered machines for their stores. Berlingieri, who had worked 10 years for his father at TENS Machine Company, an aircraft manufacturer on Long Island, now heads up his own company, which produces about a hundred Alco-Buddy machines per month.
According to Berlingieri, a bar owner who puts the machine in his or her establishment is showing concern for the customers' well-being. If the owner can demonstrate to someone in the bar that he or she is legally drunk, there is a better chance of keeping the person from getting behind the wheel, Berlingieri said. BAC levels displayed by Alco-Buddy are not legally binding. Still, Berlingieri says his machines' BAC readouts are accurate to within 0.02. He calibrates each machine himself by means of an alcohol mixture warmed to approximate the temperature of human breath. The BAC percentage is displayed for several seconds then vanishes. No printouts are given. The machine is officially "for entertainment only," despite the potentially serious nature of a high BAC.
There are of course those bar patrons, according to Berlingieri, who prefer to use his machine solely for amusement, including a group of Marines in uniform he once saw competing to get the highest "score." When he has observed customers doing that, Berlingieri said they had someone present to serve as a designated driver. He hopes the owners and staff of the establishments where he has installed Alco-Buddy — more than 15 Long Island watering holes to date — would encourage patrons whose BAC is over the legal limit to get a ride home.
Suffolk police did not respond to calls for comment on the barroom breathalyzer. But Berlingieri said he has got good reviews from police officers he has spoken with, who have told the inventive entrepreneur any tool that helps reduce drunk driving is viewed in a positive light. In the words of Berlingieri's company motto: "Check yourself, before you wreck yourself."
A serious problem on Long Island and all across our nation today is drunk driving. People become intoxicated at bars and pubs then get in their cars and drive home, putting not only themselves at risk but everyone else on the road too. What if there were a machine in bars to let people know if they should drive or not?
While visiting Europe two years ago, John Berlingieri of Holbrook saw a product that calculated a person's blood alcohol content, the factor that determines whether someone is legally drunk. Berlingieri thought it would be a no-brainer to bring this product stateside, and in February 2008 Alco-Buddy was born.
Alco-Buddy, which is in the process of being patented, resembles a small vending machine. For a price — often $2 — a bar patron can exhale into Alco-Buddy through a straw dispensed by the machine. Alco-Buddy calculates the customer's BAC and displays that level for a few seconds — in green numbers if the level is legal and in red if it is above the legal limit of 0.08.
Since making his first machines in Bohemia, Berlingieri has begun selling them to bars and other establishments that serve alcohol. Thirty companies in over 15 states have ordered machines for their stores. Berlingieri, who had worked 10 years for his father at TENS Machine Company, an aircraft manufacturer on Long Island, now heads up his own company, which produces about a hundred Alco-Buddy machines per month.
According to Berlingieri, a bar owner who puts the machine in his or her establishment is showing concern for the customers' well-being. If the owner can demonstrate to someone in the bar that he or she is legally drunk, there is a better chance of keeping the person from getting behind the wheel, Berlingieri said. BAC levels displayed by Alco-Buddy are not legally binding. Still, Berlingieri says his machines' BAC readouts are accurate to within 0.02. He calibrates each machine himself by means of an alcohol mixture warmed to approximate the temperature of human breath. The BAC percentage is displayed for several seconds then vanishes. No printouts are given. The machine is officially "for entertainment only," despite the potentially serious nature of a high BAC.
There are of course those bar patrons, according to Berlingieri, who prefer to use his machine solely for amusement, including a group of Marines in uniform he once saw competing to get the highest "score." When he has observed customers doing that, Berlingieri said they had someone present to serve as a designated driver. He hopes the owners and staff of the establishments where he has installed Alco-Buddy — more than 15 Long Island watering holes to date — would encourage patrons whose BAC is over the legal limit to get a ride home.
Suffolk police did not respond to calls for comment on the barroom breathalyzer. But Berlingieri said he has got good reviews from police officers he has spoken with, who have told the inventive entrepreneur any tool that helps reduce drunk driving is viewed in a positive light. In the words of Berlingieri's company motto: "Check yourself, before you wreck yourself."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)