The complexity of drinking: Interactions between the cognitive and behavioural determinants of alcohol consumption

This study expanded the earlier work conducted by this laboratory ( Hasking, P.A. and Oei, T.P.S. (2002a) . The differential role of alcohol expectancies, drinking refusal self-efficacy and coping resources in predicting alcohol consumption in community and clinical samples. Addiction Research and Theory , 10 , 465-494), by examining the independent and interactive effects of avoidant coping strategies, positive and negative expectancies and self-efficacy, in predicting volume and frequency of alcohol consumption in a sample of community drinkers. Differential relationships were found between the variables when predicting the two consumption measures. Specifically, while self-efficacy, seeking social support for emotional reasons and using drugs or alcohol to cope were independently related to both volume and frequency of drinking, complex interactions with positive and negative alcohol expectancies were also found. These interactions are discussed in terms of the cognitive and behavioural mechanisms thought to underlie drinking behaviour.

The relationship between acute alcohol consumption and consequent injury type

Aims: The aim of this study was to quantify the relationship between acute alcohol consumption and injury type (nature of injury, body region injured), while adjusting for the effect of known confounders (i.e. demographic and situational variables, usual drinking patterns, substance use and risk-taking behaviour). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted between October, 2000 and October, 2001 of patients aged >= 15 years presenting to a Queensland Emergency Department for treatment of an injury sustained in the preceding 24 h. There were three measures of acute alcohol consumption: drinking setting, quantity, and beverage type consumed in the 6 h prior to injury. Two variables were used to quantify injury type: nature of injury (fracture/dislocation, superficial, internal, and CNS injury) and body part injured (head/neck, facial, chest, abdominal, external, and extremities). Both were derived from patient medical records. Results: Five hundred and ninety three patients were interviewed. Logistic regression analyses indicated that, after controlling for relevant confounding variables, there was no significant association between any of the three measures of acute alcohol consumption and injury type. Conclusions: The effects of acute alcohol consumption are not specific to injury type. Interventions aimed at reducing the incidence of alcohol-related injury should not be targeted at specific injury types.

Acute alcohol consumption and mechanism of injury

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether injury mechanism among injured patients is differentially distributed as a function of acute alcohol consumption (quantity, type, and drinking setting). Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted between October 2000 and October 2001 in the Gold Coast Hospital Emergency Department, Queensland, Australia. Data were collected quarterly over a 12-month period. Every injured patient who presented to the emergency department during the study period for treatment of an injury sustained less than 24 hours prior to presentation was approached for interview. The final sample comprised 593 injured patients (males = 377). Three measures of alcohol consumption in the 6 hours prior to injury were obtained from self-report: quantity, beverage type, and drinking setting. The main outcome measure was mechanism of injury which was categorized into six groups: road traffic crash (RTC), being hit by or against something, fall, cut/piercing, overdose/poisoning, and miscellaneous. Injury intent was also measured (intentional vs unintentional). Results: After controlling for relevant confounding variables, neither quantity nor type of alcohol was significantly associated with injury mechanism. However, drinking setting (i.e., licensed premise) was significantly associated with increased odds of sustaining an intentional versus unintentional injury (odds ratio [OR] = 2.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.4-5.6); injury through being hit by/against something versus other injury types (OR = 2.59, 95% CI = 1.4-4.9); and reduced odds of sustaining an injury through RTC versus non-RTC (OR = 0.02, 95% CI = 0.004-0.9), compared with not drinking alcohol prior to injury. Conclusions: No previous analytical studies have examined the relationship between injury mechanism and acute alcohol consumption (quantity, type, and setting) across all types of injury and all injury severities while controlling for potentially important confounders (demographic and situational confounders, risk-taking behavior, substance use, and usual drinking patterns). These data suggest that among injured patients, mechanism of injury is not differentially distributed as a function of quantity or type of acute alcohol consumption but may be differentially distributed as a function of drinking setting (i.e., RTC, intentional injury, being hit). Therefore, prevention strategies that focus primarily on the quantity and type of alcohol consumed should be directed generically across injury mechanisms and not limited to particular cause of injury campaigns.

Psychometric properties of the drinking expectancy questionnaire: A review of the factor structure and a proposed new scoring method

Objective: Expectancies about the outcomes of alcohol consumption are widely accepted as important determinants of drinking. This construct is increasingly recognized as a significant element of psychological interventions for alcohol-related problems. Much effort has been invested in producing reliable and valid instruments to measure this construct for research and clinical purposes, but very few have had their factor structure subjected to adequate validation. Among them, the Drinking Expectancies Questionnaire (DEQ) was developed to address some theoretical and design issues with earlier expectancy scales. Exploratory factor analyses, in addition to validity and reliability analyses, were performed when the original questionnaire was developed. The object of this study was to undertake a confirmatory analysis of the factor structure of the DEQ. Method: Confirmatory factor analysis through LISREL 8 was performed using a randomly split sample of 679 drinkers. Results: Results suggested that a new 5-factor model, which differs slightly from the original 6-factor version, was a more robust measure of expectancies. A new method of scoring the DEQ consistent with this factor structure is presented. Conclusions: The present study shows more robust psychometric properties of the DEQ using the new factor structure.

A cognitive model of binge drinking: The influence of alcohol expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy

While binge drinking-episodic or irregular consumption of excessive amounts of alcohol-is recognised as a serious problem affecting our youth, to date there has been a lack of psychological theory and thus theoretically driven research into this problem. The current paper develops a cognitive model using the key constructs of alcohol expectancies (AEs) and drinking refusal self-efficacy (DRSE) to explain the acquisition and maintenance of binge drinking. It is suggested that the four combinations of the AE and DRSE can explain the four drinking styles. These are normal/social drinkers, binge drinkers, regular heavy drinkers, and problem drinkers or alcoholics. Since AE and DRSE are cognitive constructs and therefore modifiable, the cognitive model can thus facilitate the design of intervention and-prevention strategies for binge drinking. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Binge drinking in university students: A test of the cognitive model

The aim of this study was to test the cognitive model [Addict. Behav. 29 (2004) 159] of binge drinking in university students. In Study 1, 202 participants completed the Drinking Expectancy Questionnaire (DEQ), the Drinking Refusal Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (DRSEQ), and the Khavari Alcohol Test (KAT). The results showed that both alcohol expectancies (AEs) and drinking refusal self-efficacy (DRSE) are needed to discriminate between binge, social, and heavy drinkers. In general, binge drinkers tend to have higher AEs than social drinkers, and have slightly lower DRSE. However, young social and binge drinkers can only be discriminated on the basis of their AEs. One hundred and fourteen students were recruited for the second study, to predict which individuals would engage in binge drinking during a 4-week self-monitoring period. Over 80% of predicted binge drinkers binged at least once during the monitoring period. These two studies confirmed the cognitive model of binge drinking, and thus, hold implications for the prevention of binge drinking among adolescents and young adults. (C) 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.