Cited by 160Alcohol Consumption and Health EffectsSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Determining the best population-level alcohol consumption model and its impact on estimates of alcohol-attributable harms

Open access
Kehoe, Tara, Gmel, Gerrit, Shield, Kevin D, Gmel, Gerhard, Rehm, Jürgen·2012·Population Health Metrics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The goals of our study are to determine the most appropriate model for alcohol consumption as an exposure for burden of disease, to analyze the effect of the chosen alcohol consumption distribution on the estimation of the alcohol Population- Attributable Fractions (PAFs), and to characterize the chosen alcohol consumption distribution by exploring if there is a global relationship within the distribution. METHODS: To identify the best model, the Log-Normal, Gamma, and Weibull prevalence distributions were examined using data from 41 surveys from Gender, Alcohol and Culture: An International Study (GENACIS) and from the European Comparative Alcohol Study. To assess the effect of these distributions on the estimated alcohol PAFs, we calculated the alcohol PAF for diabetes, breast cancer, and pancreatitis using the three above-named distributions and using the more traditional approach based on categories. The relationship between the mean and the standard deviation from the Gamma distribution was estimated using data from 851 datasets for 66 countries from GENACIS and from the STEPwise approach to Surveillance from the World Health Organization. RESULTS: The Log-Normal distribution provided a poor fit for the survey data, with Gamma and Weibull distributions providing better fits. Additionally, our analyses showed that there were no marked differences for the alcohol PAF estimates based on the Gamma or Weibull distributions compared to PAFs based on categorical alcohol consumption estimates. The standard deviation of the alcohol distribution was highly dependent on the mean, with a unit increase in alcohol consumption associated with a unit increase in the mean of 1.258 (95% CI: 1.223 to 1.293) (R2 = 0.9207) for women and 1.171 (95% CI: 1.144 to 1.197) (R2 = 0. 9474) for men. CONCLUSIONS: Although the Gamma distribution and the Weibull distribution provided similar results, the Gamma distribution is recommended to model alcohol consumption from population surveys due to its fit, flexibility, and the ease with which it can be modified. The results showed that a large degree of variance of the standard deviation of the alcohol consumption Gamma distribution was explained by the mean alcohol consumption, allowing for alcohol consumption to be modeled through a Gamma distribution using only average consumption.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1478-7954-10-6

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Rothman KJ Greenland S Lash TL Modern Epidemiology 2008 3 PA, USA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kehoe, T., Gmel, G., Shield, K. D., Gmel, G., & Rehm, J.
Affiliations
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
Corresponding author
Kehoe, Tara
Venue
Population Health Metrics
Published
2012-04-10
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
6-6
ISSN
1478-7954 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2159030921
Cited by
160
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 3
FWCI
9.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Population Health Metrics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IRIS (submittedVersion)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • SERVAL (Université de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • World Health Organization (QLG4-CT-2001-0196)
  • Sundhed og Sygdom, Det Frie Forskningsråd
  • European Commission
  • University of the West of England
  • Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (01/03150-6)
  • Bundesministerium für Gesundheit
  • Generalitat Valenciana
  • Syddansk Universitet
  • Secretaría de Salud
  • Xunta de Galicia
  • Agence Régionale de Santé Île-de-France
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Pan American Health Organization
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (398500)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (13410072)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Alcohol Consumption and Health Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
alcohol consumption, population attributable fraction, gamma distribution, Weibull distribution, lognormal distribution, diabetes mellitus, breast cancer, pancreatitis, gender differences in 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