Attitudes and management of alcohol problems in general practice: Descriptive analysis based on findings of a world health organization international collaborative survey

Aims: To determine if general practitioners' (GPs) experience of education on alcohol, support in their working environment for intervening with alcohol problems, and their attitudes have an impact on the number of patients they manage with alcohol problems. Methods: 1300 GPs from nine countries were surveyed with a postal questionnaire as part of a World Health Organization (WHO) collaborative study. Results: GPs who received more education on alcohol (OR = 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.7), who perceived that they were working in a supportive environment (OR = 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4-1.9), who expressed higher role security in working with alcohol problems (OR = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.5-2.5) and who reported greater therapeutic commitment to working with alcohol problems (OR = 1.4: 95% CI, 1.1-1.7) were more likely to manage patients with alcohol-related harm. Conclusion: Both education and support in the working environment need to be provided to enhance the involvement of GPs in the management of alcohol problems.

Alcohol use and risk taking among regular ecstasy users

We examine alcohol use in conjunction with ecstasy use and risk-taking behaviors among regular ecstasy users in every capital city in Australia. Data on drug use and risks were collected in 2004 from a national sample of 852 regular ecstasy users (persons who had used ecstasy at least monthly in the preceding 6 months). Users were grouped according to their typical alcohol use when using ecstasy: no use, consumption of between one and five standard drinks, and consumption of more than five drinks (binge alcohol use). The sample was young, well educated, and mainly working or studying. Approximately two thirds (65%) of the regular ecstasy users reported drinking alcohol when taking ecstasy. Of these, 69% reported usually consuming more than five standard drinks. Those who did not drink alcohol were more disadvantaged, with greater levels of unemployment, less education, higher rates of drug user treatment, and prison history. They were also more likely than those who drank alcohol when using ecstasy to be drug injectors and to be hepatitis C positive. Excluding alcohol, drug use patterns were similar between groups, although the no alcohol group used cannabis and methamphetamine more frequently. Binge drinkers were more likely to report having had three or more sexual partners in the past 6 months and were less likely to report having safe sex with casual partners while under the influence of drugs. Despite some evidence that the no alcohol group were more entrenched drug users, those who typically drank alcohol when taking ecstasy were as likely to report risks and problems associated with their drug use. It appears that regular ecstasy users who binge drink are placing themselves at increased sexual risk when under the influence of drugs. Safe sex messages should address the sexual risk associated with substance use and should be tailored to reducing alcohol consumption, particularly targeting heavy alcohol users. The study's limitations are noted.

The role of alcohol expectancy and drinking refusal self-efficacy beliefs in university student drinking

Aims: University student alcohol misuse is a considerable problem. Alcohol expectancy research has contributed significantly to our understanding of problem drinking in young adults. Most of this research has investigated positive expectancy alone. The current study utilized two measures of alcohol expectancy, the alcohol expectancy questionnaire (AEQ) and the drinking expectancy profile [consisting of the drinking expectancy questionnaire (DEQ) and the drinking refusal self-efficacy questionnaire] to predict severity of alcohol dependence, frequency of drinking, and the quantity of alcohol consumed per occasion. Methods: Measures of drinking behaviour and alcohol expectancy were completed by 174 undergraduate university students. Results: Positive alcohol expectancy factors accounted for significant variance in all three drinking indices, with the DEQ adding additional variance to AEQ scores on frequency and severity of alcohol dependence indices. Negative expectancy did not add incremental variance to the prediction of drinking behaviour in this sample. Drinking refusal self-efficacy and dependence beliefs added additional variance over positive and negative expectancies in the prediction of all three drinking parameters. Conclusions: Positive expectancy and drinking refusal self-efficacy were strongly related to university student drinking. The incorporation of expectancy as a means of informing prevention approaches in tertiary education shows promise.