↓ Skip to main content

The alcohol harm paradox: using a national survey to explore how alcohol may disproportionately impact health in deprived individuals

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
33 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
79 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
174 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
286 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
The alcohol harm paradox: using a national survey to explore how alcohol may disproportionately impact health in deprived individuals
Published in
BMC Public Health, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-2766-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mark A. Bellis, Karen Hughes, James Nicholls, Nick Sheron, Ian Gilmore, Lisa Jones

Abstract

Internationally, studies show that similar levels of alcohol consumption in deprived communities (vs. more affluent) result in higher levels of alcohol-related ill health. Hypotheses to explain this alcohol harm paradox include deprived drinkers: suffering greater combined health challenges (e.g. smoking, obesity) which exacerbate effects of alcohol harms; exhibiting more harmful consumption patterns (e.g. bingeing); having a history of more harmful consumption; and disproportionately under-reporting consumption. We use a bespoke national survey to assess each of these hypotheses. A national telephone survey designed to test this alcohol harm paradox was undertaken (May 2013 to April 2014) with English adults (n = 6015). Deprivation was assigned by area of residence. Questions examined factors including: current and historic drinking patterns; combined health challenges (smoking, diet, exercise and body mass); and under-reported consumption (enhanced questioning on atypical/special occasion drinking). For each factor, analyses examined differences between deprived and more affluent individuals controlled for total alcohol consumption. Independent of total consumption, deprived drinkers were more likely to smoke, be overweight and report poor diet and exercise. Consequently, deprived increased risk drinkers (male >168-400 g, female >112-280 g alcohol/week) were >10 times more likely than non-deprived counterparts to drink in a behavioural syndrome combining smoking, excess weight and poor diet/exercise. Differences by deprivation were significant but less marked in higher risk drinkers (male >400 g, female >280 g alcohol/week). Current binge drinking was associated with deprivation independently of total consumption and a history of bingeing was also associated with deprivation in lower and increased risk drinkers. Deprived increased/higher drinkers are more likely than affluent counterparts to consume alcohol as part of a suite of health challenging behaviours including smoking, excess weight and poor diet/exercise. Together these can have multiplicative effects on risks of wholly (e.g. alcoholic liver disease) and partly (e.g. cancers) alcohol-related conditions. More binge drinking in deprived individuals will also increase risks of injury and heart disease despite total alcohol consumption not differing from affluent counterparts. Public health messages on how smoking, poor diet/exercise and bingeing escalate health risks associated with alcohol are needed, especially in deprived communities, as their absence will contribute to health inequalities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 79 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 286 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 285 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 46 16%
Student > Bachelor 39 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 12%
Researcher 32 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 5%
Other 42 15%
Unknown 80 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 35 12%
Social Sciences 31 11%
Psychology 22 8%
Sports and Recreations 6 2%
Other 40 14%
Unknown 92 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 321. 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 August 2023.
All research outputs
#107,108
of 25,765,370 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#93
of 17,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,799
of 312,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#3
of 245 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,765,370 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 17,819 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 312,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 245 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.