a typology of alcohol consumption among young people â a … and... · a typology of alcohol...
TRANSCRIPT
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=iart20
Download by: [Ulster University Library] Date: 12 January 2016, At: 02:50
Addiction Research & Theory
ISSN: 1606-6359 (Print) 1476-7392 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/iart20
A typology of alcohol consumption among youngpeople – A narrative synthesis
Martin P. Davoren, Mary Cronin, Ivan J. Perry, Jakob Demant, Frances Shiely& Karl O’Connor
To cite this article: Martin P. Davoren, Mary Cronin, Ivan J. Perry, Jakob Demant, Frances Shiely& Karl O’Connor (2015): A typology of alcohol consumption among young people – A narrativesynthesis, Addiction Research & Theory, DOI: 10.3109/16066359.2015.1121244
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2015.1121244
Published online: 22 Dec 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 28
View related articles
View Crossmark data
ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY, 2015http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/16066359.2015.1121244
REVIEW ARTICLE
A typology of alcohol consumption among young people – A narrativesynthesis
Martin P. Davorena, Mary Cronina, Ivan J. Perrya, Jakob Demantb, Frances Shielya and Karl O’Connorc
aDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland; bDepartment of Sociology, University ofCopenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; cSchool of Criminology, Politics and Social Policy, University of Ulster, Antrim, Northern Ireland, UK
ABSTRACTBackground Currently, alcohol consumption levels are significantly higher among younger agegroups. However, previous research has noted the diversity of motivations and patterns. Thesepatterns of drinking have yet to be synthesised into a typology. The aim of the current study was tosynthesise information from studies that produced types of alcohol consumption among youngpeople. Method Quantitative and qualitative literature investigating the different types of drinkersamong young people [aged 12–24 years], published in peer reviewed journals, were eligible forinclusion in this systematic review. MEDLINE, PsychInfo and CINAHL were systematically searchedfor relevant articles published between January 1st 2000 and December 31st 2014. Included paperswere critically appraised. A narrative synthesis approach was employed based on guidance fromthe UK Economic and Social Research Council. Results In total, 13 studies were eligible forinclusion: 11 quantitative, one qualitative and one mixed methods. Six classes of drinkers wereformed within this typology. Abstainers reported no alcohol consumption. Light drinkers reporteddrinking small amounts of alcohol infrequently. In comparison, social and hedonistic drinkers drankmost in social situations and to have fun. Heavy and harmful consumers reported increased volumeand frequency of consumption including harmful consequences. Conclusion Currently, policymakers are attempting to combat the high levels of harmful alcohol consumption among youngpeople. The current typology provides guidance for targeted interventions in addition to a practicalanalytic tool in future research.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 25 May 2015Revised 12 November 2015Accepted 13 November 2015Published online9 December 2015
KEYWORDS
Typology; alcohol;young people; narrativesynthesis; review
Introduction
Since the beginning of recorded history alcohol has beenconsumed for reasons of relaxation, enjoyment andsociability (Rehm et al. 2009). The World HealthOrganisation reported Europe and America as theheaviest drinking regions in the world (World HealthOrganization 2014). Previous research has observed thatas the mean consumption pattern of the countryincreases so too does the consumption pattern of theindividual (Skog 1985; Rose and Day 1990). Youngpeople (age 18–29) represent a unique sub-section ofsociety who exhibit elevated levels of alcohol consump-tion (Morgan et al 2009). In 2015, the OECD reportedthat harmful drinking is on the rise among young people(Sassi 2015). Compounding this, it was recently reportedthat two-thirds of university students are hazardousalcohol consumers (Davoren et al. 2015) and betweenone in five (Sassi 2015) and two in five (Murphy et al.2015) second-level students (age 16–18) report bingedrinking. In a recent review of drinking cultures ahomogenisation of drinking cultures in Western societies
was noted (Gordon et al. 2011). This is supported bysimilar industry lobbying (Miller and Harkins 2010),technological advances, alcohol advertising (Andersonet al. 2009), alcohol policies (Brand et al 2007) andcultural factors (Gordon et al. 2011) across Westernsociety. Within this culture, research highlights theheterogeneous nature of alcohol consumption as youngpeople exhibit varying consumption patterns. Among thevarious consumption patterns identified in the literatureare young people who abstain from alcohol (O’Connorand Colder 2005). Research also highlights light andmoderate levels of alcohol consumption (Hersh andHussong 2006) in addition to heavy/binge drinkers(Steinhausen and Metzke 2003; Deshpande and Rundle-Thiele 2011) and problem alcohol consumers (Reboussinet al. 2006; Dauber et al. 2009). Public health policymakers have attempted to tackle population consump-tion throughout the past number of decades usingmarketing and supply restrictions (Babor and Caetano2005). However, alcohol remains a major cause of globalsuffering.
CONTACT Mr. Martin Davoren [email protected] Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College Cork, 4th Floor Western GatewayBuilding, Western Road, Cork, Ireland
! 2015 Taylor & Francis
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uls
ter
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:50
12
Janu
ary
2016
Most recently, typologies have been hypothesised as apertinent public health tool (Eriksson et al. 2007). Theadvantage of a typology approach is that it enhances ourunderstanding of a societal phenomenon while making itpossible to note patterns across societies. Results fromprevious research outputs have yet to be synthesised toproduce a typology of drinkers. Furthermore, the rangeof types is not usually considered in policy developmentand implementation (Berg 2009).
Aim of the study
The current study aims to conduct a systematic review ofprevious literature in order to develop a typology ofalcohol consumption among young people from researchin Western countries.
Methodology
A narrative synthesis approach was chosen as it allowedfor the inclusion of a broad range of research designs(Popay et al. 2006). The narrative synthesis was under-taken using steps outlined in the guidance, developed byPopay et al. (2006) for the UK Economic and SocialResearch Council (ESRC). This guidance was developedafter the Cochrane Collaboration highlighted that‘systematic reviews adopting a narrative approach tosynthesis are prone to bias, and may generate unsoundconclusions leading to harmful decision’ (Popay et al.2006). Thus, these guidelines aim to ‘promote transpar-ent reporting and assessment of the robustness of theresults’ (Marshall et al. 2012). The guidelines structurethe narrative synthesis as follows: (1) identifying atheory, (2) identifying the review process, (3) identifyingstudies to include in the review, (4) extracting informa-tion and completing quality appraisal of included studiesand (5) synthesising this information together (Popayet al. 2006).
Identifying a theory
Skog’s theory of the ‘Collectivity of Drinking Cultures’(Skog 1985) is utilised as a framework for this narrativesynthesis. This theory assumes that an individual’s peergroup and the culture in which they live impact on anindividual’s drinking. In addition, it suggests that anindividual’s alcohol consumption increases as the meanconsumption for the society in which they live increases.Skog illustrated that factors influencing an individual’sdrinking tend to combine multiplicatively and thatindividual drinking behaviours are regulated by directand indirect social influences on the individual fromtheir peers and other social and cultural networks
(Skog 1985, 2001). Due to these influences, changes indrinking habits are typically seen as a group phenom-enon (Landberg 2010).
Identifying the review process
Quantitative and qualitative literature, published in peerreviewed journals, investigating the different types ofdrinkers, among a young adult population (aged 12–24years) were eligible for inclusion in this review. Forquantitative research, articles must have employedfactor/cluster analysis to investigate the type of alcoholconsumer. These complementary methods are under-pinned by an underlying logic of classification, attempt-ing to uncover homogeneous units (Krebs et al. 2000).MEDLINE, PsychInfo and CINAHL were searched forrelevant articles separately by quantitative and qualitativeresearch from January 2000 up until December 31st2014. Full details of the MESH terms and qualitativespecific terms (McKibbon et al. 2006) used are outlinedin Appendices 1 and 2. No language limits were placedon the inclusion of articles.
Identifying studies to include in the review
Completed searches were initially title and abstractsearched by one reviewer (MPD) and any clearlyirrelevant titles were excluded. All papers, which werereferred to the research question, were downloaded andfully reviewed. At this point, a final selection was madeand any duplicates from the databases were removed.Reference mining was conducted on all included articles.A flow diagram of this is displayed separately forquantitative (Figure 1) and qualitative (Figure 2)findings. English translation of abstracts for relevantpapers was available but no full text of a non-Englishpaper was required. References for all included articleswere managed in EndNote, a reference package, to keeptrack of paper selection.
Quality appraisal of included studies
Included papers were quality assessed using a modifiedversion of the Effective Public Health Practice Projecttool for quality assessment of quantitative studies. Theappraisal dealt with four main areas: selection bias, studydesign, data collection methods and analysis. As outlinedby Armijo-Olivo et al., sections were rated as strong (3points), moderate (2 points) or weak (1 point) and anappraisal score out of 12 was defined (Armijo-Olivo et al.2012). Higher appraisal scores indicated better qualitystudies. The RATS (Relevance, Appropriateness,Transparency, Soundness) checklist was used for
2 M. P. DAVOREN ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uls
ter
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:50
12
Janu
ary
2016
Database
Number of ar�clesretrieved from
�tle/abstract search
Number of ar�clesretrieved and read in full
Total[A�er duplicates across
searches were removed]
PsychInfo = 809 MEDLINE = 328 CINAHL = 827
12 8 7
9 6 2
1
Total Total = 1,964
Figure 2. Number of articles retrieved in qualitative research.
Database
Number of ar�clesretrieved from
�tle/abstract search
Number of ar�clesretrieved and read in full
Total[A�er duplicates across
searches were removed]
PsychInfo = 235 MEDLINE = 416 CINAHL = 270
36 29 22
20 21 18
12
Total Total = 921
3 ar�cles retrievedfrom referencesearches of includedar�cles
Figure 1. Number of articles retrieved in quantitative research.
ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uls
ter
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:50
12
Janu
ary
2016
qualitative studies. This checklist comprised of 25questions about appropriateness of the method andsoundness of the approach. As previously described byLeamy et al., each question was dichotomised into yes (1point) or no (0 points) giving a scale which ranged frompoor quality, zero, to high quality, 25 (Leamy et al. 2011).Information regarding the target population, sample size,study methodology and main results were extracted fromall included studies (see Table 1). Two authors reviewedarticles for quality. Discrepancy in score was discussedwith all co-authors to obtain concordance.
Synthesising the information
Complete results sections from each included articlewere extracted for analysis. Using NVivo 10, types ofdrinking behaviour were synthesised from includedstudies using an inductive approach to content analysis,as it is ‘a systematic and objective means of describingand quantifying phenomena’ (Elo and Kyngas 2008).Prevalence of specific types from individual papers wasexcluded due to the methodological and contextualdifferences among the studies.
Results
In total, 13 articles were included in the review; 11quantitative, one qualitative and one mixed methodsstudy (see Figures 1 and 2). Table 1 details an overviewof each included study in this synthesis. The six maintypes of alcohol consumer identified within this narrativesynthesis were Abstainers, Light drinkers, Social drin-kers, Hedonistic drinkers, Heavy alcohol consumers andProblem alcohol users. No distinct differences in typesreported were observed between countries.
Abstainers
Young people in this group reported no alcoholconsumption either currently (current non-drinkers) orin their lifetime (lifetime abstainers). These individualsreported complete abstention from alcohol. In total, fiveof the included papers reported a type of drinker whorefrained completely from alcohol use (Steinhausen andMetzke 2003; Dauber et al. 2009; Mathijssen et al. 2012;van Lettow et al. 2013; Cleveland et al. 2013). In general,younger people were more likely to be abstainers thanolder people (Dauber et al. 2009). Three of the includedpapers excluded non-drinkers as their aim was toinvestigate drinking styles (Stewart and Power 2002;Reboussin et al. 2006; Comasco et al. 2010).
Light drinkers
Most studies reported light alcohol users along withyoung people who have only experimented or sippedalcohol (Stewart and Power 2002; O’Connor and Colder2005; Reboussin et al. 2006; Percy and Iwaniec 2007;Dauber et al. 2009; Demant & Torronen 2011; Craigset al. 2012; Mathijssen et al. 2012; Cleveland et al. 2013;van Lettow et al. 2013; Jackson et al. 2014). Individualswho reported light levels of alcohol consumption drinksmall amounts of alcohol and have few alcohol-relatedproblems. These people may be likely to report alcoholconsumption but were unlikely to report risky behav-iours. Others in this cluster reported sipping alcohol intheir lifetime and were unlikely to have three or moredrinks on one occasion. This group reported low,infrequent amounts of alcohol consumption. Moreover,individuals in this group were more likely to be youngerin age (van Lettow et al. 2013) and female (van Lettowet al. 2013; Jackson et al. 2014) when compared to heavydrinkers. They were described as ‘consciously sober’ byMathjssen et al. (2012) and were characterised ascautious, unadventurous and family orientated. Lightdrinkers reported no instances of heavy drinking.
Social drinkers
Alcohol facilitates group interactions, meeting newpeople and feeling a sense of belonging in a group(Comasco et al. 2010; Demant and Torronen 2011;Jackson et al. 2014). Drinking for social reasons was aclear type of alcohol consumption among these youngpeople (Stewart and Power 2002; Steinhausen andMetzke 2003; Reboussin et al. 2006; Comasco et al.2010; Demant and Torronen 2011; Mathijssen et al.2012). Social drinkers noted drinking at parties withother individuals made them feel more outgoing andsocial (Comasco et al. 2010). Furthermore, they refer todrinking at bars and other social events in groups withfriends (Power et al. 2005) where they drank alcohol dueto social expectation.
Social drinking occasions can occur during a socialevening away from home, at home or at a friend’s house.A sense of mutual solidarity surrounds group drinking,underpinning this type of consumption (Demant andTorronen 2011). Alcohol consumption facilitates anatmosphere for social activities and feelings of inclusion.Their drinking habits are distinct due to their motivationto consume alcohol being driven by peer influence. Thiscomplements Skog’s theory which stated that an indi-vidual’s drinking habits are strongly influenced by thedrinking habits of an individual’s peers or social network(Skog, 1985, 2001). Social drinkers were more likely to be
4 M. P. DAVOREN ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uls
ter
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:50
12
Janu
ary
2016
Tab
le1.
Stu
die
sin
vest
igat
ing
the
diff
eren
tty
pes
of
alco
ho
lco
nsu
mer
sam
on
gyo
un
gp
eop
le(n¼
13).
Ref
Au
tho
rY
ear/
cou
ntr
yD
esig
nSa
mp
leA
ge
Met
ho
dD
ata
anal
ysis
Ap
pra
isal
sco
res
Typ
esid
enti
fied
#1Ja
ckso
net
al.
(201
4)20
14/N
ewZ
eala
nd
An
anon
ymo
us
com
pu
ter-
assi
sted
surv
eyw
asse
lf-ad
min
-is
tere
dto
9,10
7N
ewZ
eala
nd
seco
nd
ary
sch
oo
lstu
den
ts.
Thes
est
ud
ents
wer
efr
om
115
sch
oo
lsfr
om
389
elig
ible
sch
oo
lsw
ere
cho
sen
.18
9%o
fel
igib
lest
ud
ents
fro
mea
chsc
ho
ol
wer
era
nd
om
lych
ose
n
14–
17ye
ars
An
anon
ymo
usco
mp
uter
-as
sist
edsu
rvey
Mu
ltin
om
ial
reg
ress
ion
10/1
2A
Fou
rcl
ass
stru
ctu
rew
asd
eter
-m
ined
follo
win
gla
ten
tcl
ass
anal
ysis
(1)
Low
-ris
k(2
)M
od
erat
e-ri
sk(3
)H
igh
-ris
k(4
)V
ery
hig
h-r
isk
#2C
amas
coet
al.
(201
0)20
10/S
wed
enM
ixed
met
ho
ds
–G
rou
nd
edTh
eory
&C
ross
-se
ctio
nal
surv
ey
11,3
74A
ges
ran
ged
fro
m15
to22
[mo
stw
ere
15–
19ex
cep
tfo
rth
ose
aged
19–
22af
ter
thre
eye
ars
follo
w-u
p]
Qu
alit
ativ
e&
Qu
anti
tati
ve–4
in-d
epth
inte
r-vi
ews
and
aq
ues
tio
nn
aire
Qu
an:
Fact
or
ana-
lysi
sQ
ual
:N
ot
des
crib
ed
Qu
ant:
9/12
Qu
al:
Wea
k(1
)So
cial
-en
han
cem
ent
mo
tive
(2)
Co
pin
gm
oti
ve(3
)D
om
inan
cem
oti
ve
#3D
aub
eret
al.
(200
9)20
09/U
nit
edSt
ates
Lon
git
ud
inal
stu
dy
2948
13–
19ye
ars
Surv
eyLa
ten
tcl
ass
anal
ysis
9/12
Wh
ite
gir
ls:
4cl
ass
mo
del
(1)
Ab
stai
ner
s(2
)Ex
per
imen
ters
(3)
Mo
der
ate
dri
nke
rs(4
)H
eavy
dri
nke
rsA
fric
anA
mer
ican
Gir
ls:
3cl
ass
mo
del
(1)
Ab
stai
ner
s(2
)Ex
per
imen
ters
(3)
Pro
ble
md
rin
kers
#4M
ath
ijsse
net
al.
(201
2)20
12/t
he
Net
her
lan
ds
Cro
ss-s
ecti
on
alst
ud
y32
3012
–18
year
sSu
rvey qu
esti
on
nai
reEx
plo
rato
ryfa
cto
ran
alys
is9/
12La
ten
tC
lass
anal
ysis
un
cove
red
five
clu
ster
s(1
)O
rdin
arie
s(2
)H
igh
Spir
its
(3)
Co
nsc
iou
sly
Sob
ers
(4)
Ord
inar
ySo
ber
s(5
)So
cial
s#5
O’C
on
no
ran
dC
old
er(2
005)
2005
/Un
ited
Stat
esC
ross
-sec
tio
nal
surv
ey53
3fr
esh
man
un
iver
sity
stu
den
ts
21o
rle
ssSe
lf-co
mp
lete
dq
ues
tio
nn
aire
sd
istr
ibu
ted
amo
ng
psy
ch-
olo
gy
dep
artm
ents
Late
nt
clas
san
alys
is9/
12A
five
clas
sm
od
elw
asfo
un
dto
hav
eth
eb
est
fitfo
rb
oth
men
and
wo
men
.Th
ecl
asse
sw
ere
asfo
llow
s(1
)Li
gh
td
rin
kers
or
abst
ain
ers
(2)
Hea
vyo
ccas
ion
ald
rin
kin
gw
ith
ou
tim
pai
rmen
t(3
)H
eavy
occ
asio
nal
dri
nki
ng
wit
him
pai
rmen
t(4
)V
ery
hea
vyo
ccas
ion
ald
rin
-ke
rsw
ith
imp
airm
ent
(5)
Hea
vyfr
equ
ent
dri
nke
rsw
ith
imp
airm
ent
(co
nti
nu
ed)
ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uls
ter
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:50
12
Janu
ary
2016
Tab
le1.
Co
nti
nu
ed
Ref
Au
tho
rY
ear/
cou
ntr
yD
esig
nSa
mp
leA
ge
Met
ho
dD
ata
anal
ysis
Ap
pra
isal
sco
res
Typ
esid
enti
fied
#6Pe
rcy
and
Iwan
iec
(200
7)20
07/U
nit
edK
ing
do
mC
oh
ort
Stu
dy
6516
resp
on
den
ts16
year
sPo
stal que
stio
nn
aire
sLa
ten
tC
lass
An
alys
is9/
12Fi
vela
ten
tcl
asse
sw
ere
un
cove
red
inth
efo
llow
ing
rese
arch
:(1
)Li
mit
ed(2
)O
ccas
ion
al(3
)M
od
erat
e(4
)H
eavy
(5)
Haz
ard
ou
s#7
Reb
ouss
inet
al.
(200
6)20
06/U
nit
edSt
ates
Cro
ss-s
ecti
on
alsu
rvey
4056
resp
on
den
tsw
ho
qu
alifi
edas
dri
nke
rs
16–
20Te
lep
ho
ne
surv
ey–
Firs
tro
un
din
1999
,re
pea
ted
in20
00,
&20
02
Late
nt
Cla
ssA
nal
ysis
9/12
Ath
ree
clas
sm
od
elw
asch
osen
asa
bes
tfit
follo
win
gan
alys
is.
The
clas
ses
wer
ed
escr
ibed
asfo
llow
s:(1
)N
on
-pro
ble
md
rin
kers
(2)
Ris
kyp
rob
lem
dri
nke
rs(3
)R
egu
lar
pro
ble
md
rin
kers
#8St
ewar
tan
dPo
wer
(200
2)20
11/U
nit
edSt
ates
Cro
ss-s
ecti
on
alsu
rvey
950
hig
hsc
ho
ol
stu
den
ts9t
h–
12th
Gra
de
�14
–18
year
sSe
lf-co
mp
lete
dq
uest
ion
nai
reC
lust
eran
alys
is9/
12A
tota
lo
f95
0ad
oles
cen
td
rin
kers
wer
ein
clu
ded
inth
efin
alcl
uste
ran
alys
is.
Eig
ht
clus
ters
wer
eu
nco
vere
d:
(1)
Lig
ht
dri
nke
rs(2
)Pa
ren
td
rin
kers
(3)
Fam
ilyo
ccas
ion
dri
nke
rs(4
)D
ate
dri
nke
rs(5
)M
od
erat
e-fr
ien
dd
rin
kers
(6)
Part
yd
rin
kers
(7)
Ou
tdo
or
dri
nke
rs(8
)H
eavy
mu
ltip
le-c
on
text
dri
nke
rs#9
Cle
vela
nd
etal
.(2
013)
2012
/Un
ited
Stat
esC
ross
-sec
tio
nal
surv
ey26
418
-22
year
sW
eb-b
ased
surv
eyLa
ten
tC
lass
An
alys
is9/
12A
4cl
ass
mo
del
was
chos
enas
ab
est
fitfo
llow
ing
anal
ysis
.Th
em
od
elu
nco
vers
the
follo
win
gcl
asse
s:(1
)C
urr
ent
non
-dri
nke
rs.
(2)
Wee
ken
dlig
ht
dri
nke
rs(3
)W
eeke
nd
risk
yd
rin
kers
(4)
Dai
lyd
rin
kers
#10
Cra
igs
etal
.(2
012)
2011
/Un
ited
Kin
gd
om
Lon
git
ud
inal
stu
dy
119
stu
den
tsco
mp
lete
d16
2o
rig
inal
lyre
gis
tere
din
tere
st
Un
der
23El
ectr
on
icq
uest
ion
nai
reC
lust
eran
alys
is8/
12Fo
ur
dis
tin
ctcl
ust
ers
of
alco
hol
beh
avio
urs
wer
eta
ken
fro
mth
ean
alys
is.
Thes
ew
ere:
(1)
No
n-
or
ligh
td
rin
kers
(2)
Less
freq
uen
td
rin
kers
wh
ob
ing
e(3
)H
abit
ual
dri
nke
rsw
ho
bin
ge
infr
equ
entl
y(4
)H
abit
ual
dri
nke
rsw
ho
bin
ge
freq
uen
tly
(co
nti
nu
ed)
6 M. P. DAVOREN ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uls
ter
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:50
12
Janu
ary
2016
Tab
le1.
Co
nti
nu
ed
Ref
Au
tho
rY
ear/
coun
try
Des
ign
Sam
ple
Ag
eM
eth
od
Dat
aan
alys
isA
pp
rais
alsc
ore
sTy
pes
iden
tifie
d
#11
van
Lett
owet
al.
2013
/th
eN
eth
erla
nd
sIn
div
idu
alw
ere
app
roac
hed
inp
ub
licar
eas
of
Ro
tter
dam
and
Del
ft,
aske
dth
eir
age,
tore
adan
info
r-m
atio
nsh
eet,
sig
na
con
sen
tfo
rman
dto
retu
rnth
esu
rvey
by
mai
l
149
resp
on
den
ts,
37%
wer
em
enM
ean
age¼
20.6
year
sSe
lf-co
mp
lete
dq
uest
ion
nai
reM
ulti
leve
lla
ten
tcl
ass
anal
ysis
8/12
Clu
ster
of
resp
on
den
ts:
(1)
Focu
s-o
n-c
on
tro
lcl
ass
(2)
Focu
s-o
n-h
edo
nis
m(3
)C
on
tras
tin
gex
trem
esp
roto
typ
es(4
)Fo
cus-
on
-ela
tio
n
#12
Stei
nh
ause
nan
dW
inkl
er-M
etzk
e(2
003)
2003
/Zu
rich
,Sw
itze
rlan
dSa
mp
lefr
om
ZES
CA
Pfo
rmco
ho
rto
fZ
APP
Sw
hic
his
alo
n-
git
ud
inal
stu
dy
794
13–2
0ye
ars
Qu
esti
on
nai
reM
ulti
vari
ate
ana-
lysi
so
fco
-var
i-an
cem
od
el(M
AN
CO
VA
)
5/12
Bas
edo
nse
ven
yes/
no
que
stio
ns,
fou
rsu
bsa
mp
les
wer
eu
nco
v-er
ed.
The
gro
up
sw
ere
com
-p
rise
do
fth
efo
llow
ing
:(1
)A
bst
ain
ers:
N¼
252,
31.7
%(2
)So
cial
dri
nke
rs:
N¼
337,
42.4
%(3
)H
eavy
dri
nke
rs:
N¼
130,
16.4
%(4
)Pr
ob
lem
dri
nke
rs:
N¼
75,
9.4%
#13
Dem
ant
and
Torr
on
en(2
011)
2011
/Fin
lan
d&
Den
mar
kQ
ual
itat
ive
focu
sg
rou
pex
plo
rati
on
95p
arti
cip
ants
17–2
3ye
ars
16Fo
cus
gro
up
sQ
ual
itat
ive
[not
des
crib
ed]
Mod
erat
e(1
)A
‘cos
yg
et-t
og
eth
er’
sim
ilar
toa
pic
nic
sess
ion
wh
ere
asi
ng
leb
eer
cou
ldb
een
joye
d(2
)H
ero
icd
rin
kin
gb
ehav
iou
rs–
Diff
eren
tsi
tuat
ion
sar
esu
ited
tod
iffer
ent
dri
nki
ng
styl
es.
This
form
of
dri
nki
ng
aid
sin
bre
akin
gd
own
bar
-ri
ers
and
bri
ng
ing
peo
ple
clo
ser
thro
ug
hh
eavy
dri
nk-
ing
epis
od
es.
Toth
est
u-
den
ts,
her
oic
dri
nki
ng
isu
sual
lym
etw
ith
no
hin
-d
ran
ces
and
end
sw
ith
pas
-si
ng
ou
t(3
)Fi
nal
ly,
stu
den
tsd
iscu
ssed
the
idea
of
pla
yfu
ld
rin
kin
g.
Ind
ivid
ual
sm
ake
eye
con
tact
or
gaz
eat
each
oth
erin
ap
layf
ul
way
.Th
isai
ds
them
inid
enti
fyin
gth
ese
ind
ivid
-u
als
toa
gro
up
wh
ere
they
gai
nso
me
colle
ctiv
eid
enti
tyo
rb
elo
ng
ing
ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uls
ter
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:50
12
Janu
ary
2016
female when compared to heavy drinkers (Steinhausenand Metzke 2003) and were older when compared toabstainers (Steinhausen and Metzke 2003; Mathijssenet al. 2012). Individuals in this group report moderatelevels of alcohol consumption. This type of drinking wasreported in 12 of the included papers.
Hedonistic drinkers
The majority of the included papers portrayed ahedonistic approach to alcohol use (Stewart and Power2002; Reboussin et al. 2006; Dauber et al. 2009; Comascoet al. 2010; Demant and Torronen 2011; Craigs et al.2012; Mathijssen et al. 2012; Cleveland et al. 2013; vanLettow et al. 2013). Hedonism is the view that pleasure isthe only good thing in life and can be defined by viewing‘pleasure as the only possible object of desire, because allmotivation is based on the prospect of pleasure’(O’Shaughnessy and O’Shaughnessy 2002). An integralpart of hedonistic drinking is the use of alcohol tochange one’s mood, for enjoyment, to enhance socialsituations, to reduce inhibitions and to get intoxicatedand experiment (Comasco et al. 2010). These individualsenjoyed being drunk and drank to feel pleasure (vanLettow et al. 2013). This style of drinking is associatedwith impulsive drinking behaviours and drinking largeramounts of alcohol with the intention of having fun andenjoyment (Stewart and Power 2002). This group ofdrinkers are distinct from social drinkers in their self-indulgent motivation to consume alcohol. Instead ofbeing motivated by peers and social groups, hedonisticdrinkers are driven by their personal need to feelpleasure, overcome reservations and enjoy themselves.These individuals are more likely to be older than lightdrinkers (Craigs et al. 2012), and less likely to be femalethan other groups (van Lettow et al. 2013).
Heavy drinkers
The majority of included papers (12) discussed patterns ofheavy alcohol consumption among young people. Heavyalcohol consumption ranged in name from ‘weekend riskydrinker’ to ‘habitual drinkers’; describing individuals whowould consume harmful levels alcohol on a regular basis.Individuals who fell within heavy alcohol consumptiongroups would report heavy drinking, high rates ofconsequences due to alcohol consumption, high riskdrinking behaviours and regular patterns of alcoholconsumption (Stewart and Power 2002; Steinhausen andMetzke 2003; O’Connor and Colder 2005; Reboussin et al.2006; Percy and Iwaniec 2007; Dauber et al. 2009;Comasco et al. 2010; Demant and Torronen 2011;Craigs et al. 2012; Mathijssen et al. 2012; Cleveland et al.
2013; Jackson et al. 2014). This group would consumehigher amounts of alcohol and consume alcohol morefrequently than their peers who report light drinking orsocial levels of drinking. Heavy drinkers were associatedwith early initiation into alcohol consumption, drinkingto intoxication and binge drinking (Stewart and Power2002; Reboussin et al. 2006; Demant and Torronen 2011;Cleveland et al. 2013). Adverse consequences for this typeof alcohol consumer are reported in the literature,including hangovers, blackouts, getting sick, feelingdepressed, losing control and having an outburst ofanger. In general, men (Reboussin et al. 2006; Sacco et al.2009) and those at the upper age limit of this study(Steinhausen and Metzke 2003) were more likely to reportheavy drinking.
Problem alcohol users
Problem alcohol users and the negative aspects associatedwith this type of alcohol use were described in 11 of the 13included studies (Stewart and Power 2002; Reboussinet al. 2006; Percy and Iwaniec 2007; Dauber et al. 2009;Comasco et al. 2010; Demant and Torronen 2011; Craigset al. 2012; Mathijssen et al. 2012; Cleveland et al. 2013;van Lettow et al. 2013; Jackson et al. 2014). Problemalcohol users are described as individuals who reportedsolitary drinking, drinking in the morning, individualswho drink on a daily basis and those who reportconsuming alcohol and driving (Stewart and Power2002; Dauber et al. 2009; Cleveland et al. 2013). Anumber of papers also reported their drinking patternplacing them in unwanted sexual situations or regrettingsex (Dauber et al. 2009; Cleveland et al. 2013). Problemalcohol users are described as such because of the negativeoutcomes associated with their alcohol consumption.
In addition, a number of studies highlighted thatproblem drinkers are fuelled by negative emotions and awish to change or improve mood through heavy alcoholconsumption. Physiological and pharmacological side-effects among problem alcohol users are frequent. Theydescribe drinking ‘to think of something else/to forgetmy worries, my problems’ (Comasco et al. 2010).Compared to abstainers/light drinkers this group isolder (Jackson et al. 2014) and predominantly male(Percy and Iwaniec 2007; Jackson et al. 2014).
Discussion
Alcohol consumption is a leading cause of suffering insociety (World Health Organization 2009). Reports fromdifferent countries reveal that young people today drinkmore, with increasing emphasis on binge drinking anddrunkenness than earlier generations (McCabe 2002;
8 M. P. DAVOREN ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uls
ter
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:50
12
Janu
ary
2016
Carey et al. 2007; Murphy and Murphy 2010). This issaid to have increased over the last 45 years. Authorshave previously hypothesised this as the ‘psychoactiverevolution’ and by the 1990s, a decade defined by a ‘newculture of intoxification’ had manifested, peaking in 2001(Jarvinen and Room 2007). This cultural shift is furthercompounded by the fact that young adult consumptionlevels remained steady for the 1970s and 80s but doubledin the 1990s (Jarvinen and Room 2007). The currentresearch describes a synthesis of previously publishedtypologies of alcohol consumption identified in youngpeople living in Western society. Systematic reviewsfurnish policy makers with the entire range of relevantfindings from research on a particular topic, ensuringthey are not misguided by the results of one or twostudies (Akobeng 2005). The authors believe this reviewwill be a robust analytic tool in future research inaddition to providing novel information for public policymakers when tailoring health promotion interventions.
Abstainers and light drinkers may serve as protectiveand moderating factors when socialising among peers.Recently, an Australian report mooted that these individ-uals could be described as controlled and conscientious(VicHealth 2013). These individuals look out for otherswhen socialising. Health promotion practitioners haverecommended that these individual’s drinking attitudesshould be ‘encouraged and supported as the ideal drinkingattitude’ (VicHealth 2013). The protection peers offereach other against engagement in excessive alcoholconsumption should be emphasised (Quinn and Bussey2015). This can be achieved by ‘challenging society’snegative image of moderate drinking and empoweringpeople to abstain or drink less’ (VicHealth 2013).
As previously noted, ‘the classes of drinking occasionswhen heavy drinking occurs are of special interest fromthe preventive perspective’ (Mustonen et al. 2014). Skogemphasises, ‘egos drinking is very strongly influenced byalter’s drinking in group sessions’ (Skog 1985) highlight-ing the importance of an individual’s peer group andculture on their drinking pattern (Skog 1985). Thiscomplements the current research where the influence ofpeer drinking is evident. Young people highlight theirmotivators in terms of ‘house parties’, excessive drinkingand enjoyment which is apparent in social, hedonisticand heavy consumers. These correspond to the previ-ously described motives: ‘social’ and ‘enhancement’(Stewart et al. 1996; Quinn and Bussey 2015).
Individuals anticipate more arousal from risky behav-iours (Katz et al. 2000), complementing our finding ofhedonistic drinking. Hedonistic drinking has previouslybeen noted as a culture of alcohol consumption amongour society (Hurlbut and Sher 1992; Gordon et al. 2011).It is sustained by a technological era of instant
gratification to which young people have been exces-sively exposed. As outlined by Gordon, ‘rules governingdrinking behaviours vary and are often informal, sociallynegotiated and acquired via the socialisation process’(Gordon et al. 2011). It is these social cultures, whichgovern and reflect attitudes toward alcohol. For example,Germany tends to value individuals who can hold one’sdrink while the UK appears to celebrate intoxication andhigh levels of alcohol consumption. Gordon defines thesevariations in ‘levels of drinking and drunkenness as the‘‘hedonism’’ dimension to drinking cultures’ (Gordonet al. 2011). These cultural norms represent an importantway of regulating drinking behaviour.
Recommendations for policy & health promotionstrategies
Public policy makers have attempted to combat alcoholuse with a number of legislative measures. Despite this,consumption levels have continued to increase (Davorenet al. 2015). This typology gives us further insight intothe drinking patterns of young people. For example,abstainers give insight into their reasons for notconsuming alcohol (Steinhausen and Metzke 2003;Dauber et al. 2009; Mathijssen et al. 2012), while lightdrinkers give insight into a form of conscious experi-mentation which occurs as young people explore alcoholconsumption while remaining conscious and in controlof their bodies (Hersh and Hussong 2006; Reboussinet al., 2006; Dauber et al. 2009; Huang et al. 2011;Mathijssen et al. 2012). These consumption patterns arealso observed in comparatively older populations (Saccoet al. 2009), and in other risk taking activities (Fountainet al. 1999). Although, harms caused by these drinkingstyles are negligible, national policy and health promo-tion strategies aimed toward education, taxation andrestrictions on opening hours remain crucial to ensuringthese individuals do not transition to heavier patterns ofalcohol consumption. In addition, the socio-culturalnorms and practices upheld by these groups are useful inthe tailoring positive health promotion strategies, aimedat altering the negative image of abstinence and lightdrinking among young people (Quinn and Bussey 2015).
In the past decade a surge in predrinking has beenobserved with adolescents predrinking before parties orbefore going out (Kuntsche and Gmel 2013). This wasobserved in a typology which was formed almost50 years ago (Park 1967). This is being fuelled by theavailability of cheap alcohol through off-sales and thecurrent phenomenon of the ‘house party’ (Wells et al.2009). The most effective measure to reduce the harmscaused by this style of drinking is minimum unit pricing.This measure would increase the price of off-licence sales
ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uls
ter
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:50
12
Janu
ary
2016
thus reducing the consumption among hedonisticdrinkers (The Scottish Government 2013). A reductionin the density of outlets surrounding colleges, univer-sities and schools would also reduce consumption andpatterns of harm. Culturally, a ban on the alcoholindustry providing sports sponsorship would break theview of alcohol as a cultural artefact (McGee 2013).However, for young people reporting problem drinkingand addictive tendencies, their motives for drinking arecentred on coping (Comasco et al. 2010). Individualstrategies will be required among these individuals, suchas brief intervention therapy, support structures andclear pathways of referral to addiction clinics.
Many screening tools employed by health profes-sionals define young people as either hazardous or non-hazardous drinkers. The protection of this vulnerablepopulation would benefit from the development of ascreening tool which incorporated the typology pre-sented in this synthesis. This typology would aid thehealth professional to tailor brief interventions andadvice, thus improving patient care (Winograd et al.2012). In addition, health promotion practitionersshould employ the current review to understand theculture of alcohol consumption further by tailoringeffective health promotion strategies to influence thesespecific groups and reduce consumption (Santos 2013).
Strengths and limitations
This synthesis has a number of strengths. A range ofdatabases were reviewed to obtain the breath of literatureavailable researching drinking types. Relevant articles,regardless of language were considered. No previoustypology had been developed. As studies assessingdrinking type had utilised quantitative and qualitativeresearch, a robust process was used to reduce theweaknesses of a narrative syntheses approach (Popayet al. 2006).
However, the synthesis is limited to the published datawhich tends to range in quality. Most of the includedstudies were cross-sectional. Moreover, the synthesis wasconstrained by the broad age limits used in previousresearch. Those aged less than 18 will report a distinctlydifferent alcohol consumption compared to their peersaged 18 years and older. Furthermore, policy implicationsfor those above and below the legal drinking age will bedistinctly different. Research questions in the includedarticles were distinct across each study. The impact of thisis difficult to control. Finally, answers may be influencedby recall and/or social-desirability bias due to participantsdisclosing a range of risk-taking behaviour.
A typology itself can be described as a ‘systematicmethod for classifying similar events, actions, objects,
people or places into distinct groupings’ (Berg 2009).The main objective of a typology is to provide additionalinformation on the material to the reader. This isexecuted by attempting mutually exclusive categories,making sure all elements have been accounted for andensuring the categories make theoretically meaningfulappraisals of the literature. However, the idea of atypology can be a reductionist one, loosing nuances fromdata which may better describe the different aspects ofalcohol consumption. Many argue this is the beauty ofthe method as it ‘permits the researcher to present thedata in an organised and simple fashion, allowing thereader to better understand the explanations offered’(Berg 2009).
Conclusion
The current synthesis outlines a typology of alcoholconsumption among young people in Western societies.It displays a varied prevalence of reported alcohol use forspecific groups of young people implying that the needfor alcohol interventions is not uniform. Thus, publicpolicy should address the specific needs of each of thetargeted groups (Francis et al. 2014) through a mix ofpopulation-level and individual measures. Future publicpolicy should consider this typology when developingalcohol interventions, screening tools and tailoringmotivational interventions.
Declaration of interest
The authors declare that there are no competing interests.
References
Akobeng A. 2005. Understanding systematic reviews andmeta-analysis. Arch Disease Child. 90(8):845–848.
Anderson P, De Bruijn A, Angus K, Gordon R, Hastings G.2009. Impact of alcohol advertising and media exposure onadolescent alcohol use: a systematic review of longitudinalstudies. Alcohol Alcohol 44(3):229–243.
Armijo-Olivo S, Stiles CR, Hagen NA, Biondo PD, CummingsGG. 2012. Assessment of study quality for systematicreviews: a comparison of the Cochrane Collaboration Riskof Bias Tool and the Effective Public Health Practice ProjectQuality Assessment Tool: methodological research. J EvalClin Pract. 18(1):12–18.
Babor TF, Caetano R. 2005. Evidence-based alcohol policy inthe Americas: strengths, weaknesses, and future challenges.Rev Panam Salud Publica 18(4–5):327–337.
Berg BL. 2009. Qualitative research methods for the socialsciences. Vol. 7. MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Brand DA, Saisana M, Rynn LA, Pennoni F, Lowenfels AB.2007. Comparative analysis of alcohol control policies in30 countries. PLoS Med. 4(4):e151.
10 M. P. DAVOREN ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uls
ter
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:50
12
Janu
ary
2016
Carey KB, Scott-Sheldon LAJ, Carey MP, DeMartini KS. 2007.Individual-level interventions to reduce college studentdrinking: a meta-analytic review. Addict Behav.32(11):2469–2494.
Cleveland MJ, Mallett KA, White HR, Turrisi R, Favero S.2013. Patterns of alcohol use and related consequences innon-college-attending emerging adults. J Stud AlcoholDrugs 74(1):84–93.
Comasco E, Berglund K, Oreland L, Nilsson KW. 2010. Whydo adolescents drink? Motivational patterns related toalcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems. SubstUse Misuse 45(10):1589–1604.
Craigs CL, Bewick BM, Gill J, O’May F, Radley D. 2012. UKstudent alcohol consumption: A cluster analysis of drinkingbehaviour typologies. Health Educ J. 71(4):516–526.
Dauber S, Hogue A, Paulson JF, Leiferman JA. 2009.Typologies of alcohol use in White and African Americanadolescent girls. Subst Use Misuse 44(8):1121–1141.
Davoren MP, Shiely F, Byrne M, Perry IJ. 2015. Hazardousalcohol consumption among university students in Ireland: across-sectional study. BMJ Open. 5(1):e006045.
Demant J, Torronen J. 2011. Changing drinking styles inDenmark and Finland. Fragmentation of male and femaledrinking among young adults. Subst Use Misuse46(10):1244–1255.
Deshpande S, Rundle-Thiele S. 2011. Segmenting and targetingAmerican university students to promote responsible alco-hol use: a case for applying social marketing principles.Health Market Quart. 28(4):287–303.
Elo S, Kyngas H. 2008. The qualitative content analysisprocess. J Adv Nurs. 62(1):107–115.
Eriksson Å, Tengstrom A, Hodgins S. 2007. Typologies ofalcohol use disorders among men with schizophrenicdisorders. Addict Behav. 32(6):1146–1163.
Fountain J, Bartlett H, Griffiths P, Gossop M, Boys A, Strang J.1999. Why say no? Reasons given by young people for notusing drugs. Addict Res Theory 7(4):339–353.
Francis JM, Grosskurth H, Changalucha J, Kapiga SH, WeissHA. 2014. Systematic review and meta-analysis: prevalenceof alcohol use among young people in eastern Africa. TropMed Int Health 19(4):476–488.
Gordon R, Heim D, MacAskill S. 2011. Rethinking drinkingcultures: a review of drinking cultures and a reconstructeddimensional approach. Public Health Addict Res Theory126(1):3–11.
Hersh MA, Hussong AM. 2006. High school drinker typologiespredict alcohol involvement and psychosocial adjust-ment during acclimation to college. J Youth Adolesc.35(5):738–751.
Huang J-H, DeJong W, Schneider SK, Towvim LG. 2011.Endorsed reasons for not drinking alcohol: a comparison ofcollege student drinkers and abstainers. J Behav Med.34(1):64–73.
Hurlbut SC, Sher KJ. 1992. Assessing alcohol problems incollege students. J Am Coll Health 41(2):49–58.
Jackson N, Denny S, Sheridan J, Fleming T, Clark T, Teevale T,Ameratunga S. 2014. Predictors of drinking patterns inadolescence: a latent class analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend.135:133–139.
Jarvinen M, Room R. 2007. Youth drinking cultures: Europeanexperiences. Vol. 13. United Kingdom: Ashgate Publishing,Ltd.
Katz EC, Fromme K, D’Amico EJ. 2000. Effects of outcomeexpectancies and personality on young adults’ illicit druguse, heavy drinking, and risky sexual behavior. Cog TherapyRes. 24(1):1–22.
Krebs D, Berger M, Ferligoj A. 2000. Approaching achieve-ment motivation-comparing factor analysis and clusteranalysis. New approaches in applied statistics. Metodoloskizvezki. 16:147–171.
Kuntsche E, Gmel G. 2013. Alcohol consumption in lateadolescence and early adulthood – where is the problem.Swiss Med Wkly. 143:w13826.
Landberg J. 2010. Alcohol-related problems in Eastern Europe:a comparative perspective. Stockholm. University, Centre forSocial Research on Alcohol and Drugs.
Leamy M, Bird V, Le Boutillier C, Williams J, Slade M. 2011.Conceptual framework for personal recovery in mentalhealth: systematic review and narrative synthesis. Br JPsychiatry 199(6):445–452.
Marshall IJ, Wolfe CD, McKevitt C. 2012. Lay perspectives onhypertension and drug adherence: systematic review ofqualitative research. Br Med J. 345 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e3953.
Mathijssen J, Janssen M, van Bon-Martens M, van de Goor I.2012. Adolescents and alcohol: an explorative audiencesegmentation analysis. BMC Public Health 12(1):742.
McCabe SE. 2002. Gender differences in collegiate risk factorsfor heavy episodic drinking. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 63(1):49.
McGee H. 2013. Ministers favouring alcohol sports ban told tofind new funds; [cited 2013 Dec 20]. Available from: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/ministers-favouring-alco-hol-sports-ban-told-to-find-new-funds-1.1477873.
McKibbon KA, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. 2006. Developingoptimal search strategies for retrieving qualitative studies inPsycINFO. Eval Health Prof. 29(4):440–454.
Miller D, Harkins C. 2010. Corporate strategy, corporatecapture: food and alcohol industry lobbying and publichealth. Crit Social Policy 30(4):564–589.
Morgan K, McGee H, Dicker P, Brugha R, Ward M, Shelley E,Van Lente E, Harrington J, Barry M, Perry I, et al. 2009.SLAN 2007: survey of lifestyle, attitudes and nutrition inIreland. Alcohol use in Ireland: a profile of drinking patternsand alcohol-related harm from SLAN 2007. Dublin:Department of Health and Children.
Murphy F, Murphy M. 2010. The impact of social marketingon Irish female college binge drinking: Are fear appealsaffective. Paper presented at the World Social MarketingConference, United Kingdom.
Murphy E, O’Sullivan I, O’Donovan D, Hope A, Perry IJ,Davoren MP. 2015. Alcohol consumption: does the apple fallfar from the tree? Cork, Ireland: Department ofEpidemiology & Public Health, University College Cork.
Mustonen H, Makela P, Lintonen T. 2014. Toward a typologyof drinking occasions: latent classes of an autumn week’sdrinking occasions. Addict Res Theory 22(6):524–534.
O’Connor RM, Colder CR. 2005. Predicting alcohol patterns infirst-year college students through motivational systems andreasons for drinking. Psychol Addict Behav. 19(1):10–20.
O’Shaughnessy J, O’Shaughnessy NJ. 2002. Marketing,the consumer society and hedonism. Eur J Market.36(5/6):524–547.
Park P. 1967. Dimensions of drinking among male collegestudents. Soc Probs. 14(4):473–482.
ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uls
ter
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:50
12
Janu
ary
2016
Percy A, Iwaniec D. 2007. The validity of a latent class typologyof adolescent drinking patterns. Irish J Psychol Med.24(1):13–18.
Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, RodgersM, Duffy S. 2006. Guidance on the conduct of narrativesynthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRCmethods programme. Version, 1.
Power TG, Stewart CD, Hughes SO, Arbona C. 2005.Predicting patterns of adolescent alcohol use: a longitudinalstudy. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 66(1):74–81.
Quinn CA, Bussey K. 2015. Adolescents’ anticipated socialoutcomes for drinking alcohol and being drunk. Addict ResTheory. 23(3):253–264.
Reboussin BA, Song E-Y, Shrestha A, Lohman KK,Wolfson M. 2006. A latent class analysis of underageproblem drinking: evidence from a community sampleof 16–20 year olds. Drug Alcohol Depend. 83(3):199–209.
Rehm J, Mathers C, Popova S, Thavorncharoensap M,Teerawattananon Y, Patra J. 2009. Global burden ofdisease and injury and economic cost attributable toalcohol use and alcohol-use disorders. Lancet373(9682):2223–2233.
Rose G, Day S. 1990. The population mean predictsthe number of deviant individuals. Br Med J.301(6759):1031.
Sacco P, Bucholz KK, Spitznagel EL. 2009. Alcohol use amongolder adults in the national epidemiologic survey on alcoholand related conditions: a latent class analysis. J Stud AlcoholDrugs. 70(6):829–838.
Santos CR. 2013. Consumption culture in Europe: insight intothe beverage industry. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Sassi F. 2015. Tackling harmful alcohol use: economics andpublic health policy. France: OECD Publishing.
Skog OJ. 1985. The collectivity of drinking cultures: a theory ofthe distribution of alcohol consumption. Br J Addict.80(1):83–99.
Skog O-J. 2001. Commentary on Gmel & Rehm’s interpret-ation of the theory of collectivity of drinking culture. DrugAlcohol Rev. 20(3):325–331.
Steinhausen HC, Metzke CW. 2003. The validity of adolescenttypes of alcohol use. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 44(5):677–686.
Stewart C, Power TG. 2002. Identifying patterns of adolescentdrinking: a tri-ethnic study. J Stud Alcohol Drugs 63(2):156.
Stewart SH, Zeitlin SB, Samoluk SB. 1996. Examination of athree-dimensional drinking motives questionnaire in ayoung adult university student sample. Behav Res Therapy34(1):61–71.
The Scottish Government. 2013. Minimum pricing; [cited 2013Oct 20]. Available from: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Health/Services/Alcohol/minimum-pricing
van Lettow B, Vermunt JK, Vries H, Burdorf A, Empelen P.2013. Clustering of drinker prototype characteristics:What characterizes the typical drinker? Br J Psychol.104(3):382–399.
VicHealth. 2013. Drinking-related lifestyles: exploringthe role of alcohol in Victorians’ lives In:Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, editor.Melbourne, Australia: RMIT University.
Wells S, Graham K, Purcell J. 2009. Policy implications of thewidespread practice of ‘pre-drinking’ or ‘pre-gaming’ beforegoing to public drinking establishments—are current pre-vention strategies backfiring? Addiction 104(1):4–9.
Winograd RP, Littlefield AK, Martinez J, Sher KJ. 2012. Thedrunken self: the five-factor model as an organizationalframework for characterizing perceptions of one’s owndrunkenness. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 36(10):1787–1793.
World Health Organization. 2009. Global health risks: mor-tality and burden of disease attributable to selected majorrisks. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization. 2014. Global status report onalcohol and health-2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World HealthOrganization.
Appendix 1. Search terms from PsychInfo [Quantitative].
Search termNumber ofarticles retrieved
S14 S12 AND S13 190S13 MM ‘Alcohol Drinking Attitudes’ OR MM ‘Alcohol Drinking Patterns’ OR MM ‘Alcohol Abuse’ OR MM ‘Alcohol
Intoxication’ OR MM ‘Social Drinking’26,196
S12 S6 AND S11 14,077S11 S7 OR S8 OR S9 OR S10 669,066S10 MM ‘Students’ OR MM ‘Business Students’ OR MM ‘Classmates’ OR MM ‘College Students’ OR MM ‘Dental
Students’ OR MM ‘Elementary School Students’ OR MM ‘Graduate Students’ OR MM ‘High SchoolStudents’ OR MM ‘International Students’ OR MM ‘Junior High School Students’ OR MM ‘KindergartenStudents’ OR MM ‘Law Students’ OR MM ‘Medical Students’ OR MM ‘Postgraduate Students’ OR MM‘Preschool Students’ OR MM ‘Reentry Students’ OR MM ‘Seminarians’ OR MM ‘Special Education Students’OR MM ‘Transfer Students’ OR MM ‘Vocational School Students’
100,965
S9 Student 491,276S8 Youth 67,771S7 Adolescent 181,497S6 S1 OR S2 OR S3 OR S4 OR S5 45,897S5 ‘cluster analysis’ 7344S4 ‘factor analysis’ 36,938S3 ‘latent class analysis’ 1106S2 MM ‘Factor Analysis’ OR MM ‘Item Analysis (Statistical)’ OR MM ‘Statistical Rotation’ 9344S1 MM ‘Cluster Analysis’ 1894
12 M. P. DAVOREN ET AL.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uls
ter
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:50
12
Janu
ary
2016
Appendix 2. Search terms from PsychInfo [Qualitative].
Search termNumber ofarticles retrieved
S10 S4 AND S5 AND S9 809S9 S6 OR S7 OR S8 399,366S8 youth 68,413S7 adolescen* 208,259S6 DE ‘Students’ OR DE ‘Business Students’ OR DE ‘Classmates’ OR DE ‘College Students’ OR DE ‘Dental Students’
OR DE ‘Elementary School Students’ OR DE ‘Graduate Students’ OR DE ‘High School Students’ OR DE‘International Students’ OR DE ‘Junior High School Students’ OR DE ‘Kindergarten Students’ OR DE ‘LawStudents’ OR DE ‘Medical Students’ OR DE ‘Postgraduate Students’ OR DE ‘Preschool Students’ OR DE‘Reentry Students’ OR DE ‘Seminarians’ OR DE ‘Special Education Students’ OR DE ‘Transfer Students’ ORDE ‘Vocational School Students’
168,625
S5 DE ‘Alcohol Drinking Attitudes’ OR DE ‘Alcohol Drinking Patterns’ OR DE ‘Alcohol Abuse’ OR DE ‘AlcoholIntoxication’ OR DE ‘Social Drinking’
30,844
S4 S1 OR S2 OR S3 382,805S3 experiences 371,601S2 DE ‘Interviews’ OR DE ‘Intake Interview’ OR DE ‘Interview Schedules’ OR DE ‘Job Applicant Interviews’ OR DE
‘Psychodiagnostic Interview’9841
S1 DE ‘Qualitative Research’ 3916
Appendix 4. Search terms from CINAHL [Qualitative].
Search termNumber ofarticles retrieved
S10 S4 AND S5 AND S9 566S9 S6 OR S7 OR S8 205,214S8 Youth 12,723S7 MH ‘Adolescence+’ 193,078S6 (MH ‘Students, College’) OR
(MH ‘Students, High School’)15,801
S5 MH ‘Alcohol Drinking’ 11,518S4 S1 OR S2 OR S3 142,547S3 MH ‘Audiorecording’ 26,162S2 MH ‘Qualitative Studies+’ 113,690S1 MH ‘Interviews+’ 64,969
Appendix 3. Search terms from MEDLINE [Qualitative].
Search termNumber ofarticles retrieved
S10 S4 AND S5 AND S9 434S9 S6 OR S7 OR S8 1,572,139S8 youth 40,199S7 MH ‘Adolescent’ 1,542,922S6 MH ‘Students’ 32,110S5 MH ‘Alcohol Drinking’ 48,505S4 S1 OR S2 OR S3 138,689S3 experiences 371,601S2 MH ‘Qualitative Research’ 9841S1 MH ‘Focus Groups’ 3916
ADDICTION RESEARCH & THEORY 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uls
ter
Uni
vers
ity L
ibra
ry]
at 0
2:50
12
Janu
ary
2016