ArticleEuropean journal of public health2014
The beliefs about pros and cons of drinking and intention to change among hazardous and moderate alcohol users: a population-based cross-sectional study.
Article in European journal of public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prevalence and characteristics of participants inFrontiers in public health · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFundamental to supporting hazardous alcohol users are the rationales for reducing alcohol intake highlighted by the users themselves. This study analyses the relative importance of beliefs about pros and cons of drinking in relation to having an intention to reduce intake among both hazardous and moderate alcohol users.
methodsIntention to change was assessed in a representative sample of Stockholm's population (n = 4278, response rate 56.5%). Alcohol use was assessed using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test measure. A decisional balance inventory was used to examine various beliefs about the pros and cons of drinking, which covered affect changes, social gains and losses, and possible adverse effects. Independent correlations were determined by logistic regression using a backward exclusion procedure (P > 0.05).
resultsHigher ratings of importance were generally related to intent, whether or not the contrast was with having no intent or already having made a reduction. This was especially true for hazardous users. Only two beliefs were independently correlated with change among hazardous users: 'Drinking could get me addicted' and 'Drinking makes me more relaxed/less tense' (pseudo-R2 < 0.1). Among moderate users, there was no uniform pattern in the relationships.
conclusionsUnexpectedly, hazardous users with an intent to change rated pro arguments as more important than those with no intent to change. Of the investigated pros and cons, only a few were independently related to intention to change drinking behaviour. These arguments provide interesting topics in consultations. Little support was found for any rational decision making behind the intention to reduce alcohol intake.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.