ArticlePloS one2014
Alcohol misuse among university staff: a cross-sectional study.
Article in PloS one, 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine the prevalence of hazardous drinking among staff in a UK university and its association with key socio-demographic features.
designA cross-sectional study.
settingA university in the UK.
participantsAll employees on the university employee database were eligible to participate. Those who completed and returned the questionnaire were included in the sample. Respondents were 131 university employees. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: An AUDIT cut-off score of ≥8 was used as a measure of hazardous drinking. AUDIT total score as well as a score of ≥1 in each of the three conceptual domains of alcohol consumption (questions 1-3), dependence symptoms (questions 4-6) and alcohol-related problems (questions 7-10) were used as indicators of levels of drinking and alcohol-related consequences. Secondary outcomes were employees' demographics.
resultsOver one third (35%) of respondents were classified as hazardous drinkers. Twenty three per cent reported having blackouts after drinking and 14% had injuries or had injured someone. The odds of being a hazardous drinker for an employee in central departments (Human Resources, Registry etc) is only one third of that of an employee in science and health-related departments (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.14 to 0.91). The proportion of hazardous drinkers was higher in males compared to females (43% and 30% respectively), part-time compared to full-time (46% and 34% respectively), and academic compared to non-academic employees (39% and 32% respectively), although these were not statistically significant (p>0.05). Furthermore, age, religion and ethnic origin were not found to be significantly associated with hazardous drinking, although total scores were significantly lower for ethnic minorities compared to white employees (p = 0.019).
conclusionsIn this study, hazardous drinking was highly prevalent among university employees. However, overt recruiting of staff to address sensitive issues such as alcohol misuse is problematic.
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.