↓ Skip to main content

Bias in estimates of alcohol use among older people: selection effects due to design, health, and cohort replacement

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Bias in estimates of alcohol use among older people: selection effects due to design, health, and cohort replacement
Published in
BMC Public Health, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2114-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susanne Kelfve, Kozma Ahacic

Abstract

There is a growing awareness of the need to include the oldest age groups in the epidemiological monitoring of alcohol consumption. This poses a number of challenges and this study sets out to examine the possible selection effects due to survey design, health status, and cohort replacement on estimates of alcohol use among the oldest old. Analyses were based on three repeated cross-sectional interview surveys from 1992, 2002 and 2011, with relatively high response rates (86 %). The samples were nationally representative of the Swedish population aged 77+ (total n = 2022). Current alcohol use was assessed by the question "How often do you drink alcoholic beverages, such as wine, beer or spirits?" Alcohol use was examined in relation to survey design (response rate, use of proxy interviews and telephone interviews), health (institutional living, limitations with Activities of Daily Living and mobility problems) and birth cohort (in relation to age and period). Two outcomes were studied using binary and ordered logistic regression; use of alcohol and frequency of use among alcohol users. Higher estimates of alcohol use, as well as more frequent use, were associated with lower response rates, not using proxy interviews and exclusion of institutionalized respondents. When adjusted for health, none of these factors related to the survey design were significant. Moreover, the increase in alcohol use during the period was fully explained by cohort replacement. This cohort effect was also at least partially confounded by survey design and health effects. Results were similar for both outcomes. Survey non-participation in old age is likely to be associated with poor health and low alcohol consumption. Failure to include institutionalized respondents or those who are difficult to recruit is likely to lead to an overestimation of alcohol consumption, whereas basing prevalence on older data, at least in Sweden, is likely to underestimate the alcohol use of the oldest old. Trends in alcohol consumption in old age are highly sensitive for cohort effects. When analysing age-period-cohort effects, it is important to be aware of these health and design issues as they may lead to incorrect conclusions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 15%
Student > Postgraduate 4 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 6 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 31%
Psychology 5 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 12%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 8 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 March 2016.
All research outputs
#13,444,212
of 22,821,814 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,545
of 14,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,460
of 264,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#212
of 323 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,821,814 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 323 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.