Cited by 50Substance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesAlcohol Consumption and Health EffectsHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout

Alcohol Use and Hazardous Drinking among Medical Specialists

Joos, Leen, Glazemakers, Inge, Dom, Geert·2013·European Addiction Research

Abstract

Background: Alcohol use among medical specialists remains a delicate topic. However, the number of prevalence studies remains very limited in Western European countries. Aims: To explore alcohol use and hazardous drinking among male and female medical specialists. Methods: All medical specialists in Belgium – a typical Western European country regarding alcohol use – were invited to participate. Alcohol use and abuse were measured using the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) and the CAGE screen (acronym based on the four items it contains: ‘Cut down drinking’, ‘Annoyed by criticism’, ‘Guilty feelings’ and ‘Eye opener’). Results: A sample of 1,501 specialists completed the survey. The composition of the sample was comparable with that of the overall population of specialists in Belgium regarding gender, age and specialties. A proportion of 18% of the specialists could be classified as hazardous drinkers and 16.8% reported binge drinking at least once a month. Female medical specialists drank less than their male counterparts; however, a substantial proportion of female specialists (14.9%) displayed higher risk levels of hazardous drinking. Significant differences were found between specialties on the CAGE screen. Finally, younger medical specialists tended to display healthier alcohol use patterns compared with their older counterparts. Conclusion: Medical specialists tend to indulge in more hazardous drinking compared with the general population (10%). The alcohol use patterns of female doctors tend to move towards those of males.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000341993

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 21 · Cited by 50

Authors
Joos, L., Glazemakers, I., & Dom, G.
Affiliations
University of Antwerp (BE)
Venue
European Addiction Research
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2012-11-01
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
89-97
ISSN
  • 1022-6877 (ISSN-L)
  • 1421-9891
OpenAlex
W2074783994
Cited by
50
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
0.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Addiction Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Healthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Keywords
alcohol consumption, hazardous drinking, specialist physicians, physicians, binge drinking, gender differences, age differences, specialty differences, alcohol abuse, Belgium
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Alcohol Drinking, Alcoholic Intoxication, Female, Humans, Male, Medicine, Middle Aged, Physicians, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sex Factors, Alcohol-Related Disorders, Binge Drinking

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review