Historique
Article de Périodique
Estimating alcohol-attributable fractions for injuries based on data from emergency department and observational studies: a comparison of two methods (2019)
Auteur(s) :
YE, Y. ;
SHIELD, K. ;
CHERPITEL, C. J. ;
MANTHEY, J. ;
KORCHA, R. ;
REHM, J.
Année
2019
Page(s) :
462-470
Langue(s) :
Anglais
Refs biblio. :
41
Domaine :
Alcool / Alcohol
Discipline :
EPI (Epidémiologie / Epidemiology)
Thésaurus géographique
INTERNATIONAL
Thésaurus mots-clés
ALCOOL
;
URGENCE
;
FACTEUR DE RISQUE
;
MORTALITE
;
COMPARAISON
;
METHODE
;
EPIDEMIOLOGIE
;
POPULATION GENERALE
;
TRAUMATISME
;
MODELE STATISTIQUE
Résumé :
AIM: To compare the injury alcohol-attributable fractions (AAFs) estimated using emergency department (ED) data to AAFs estimated by combining population alcohol consumption data with corresponding relative risks (RRs).
DESIGN: Comparative risk assessment.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: ED studies in 27 countries (n = 24 971).
MEASUREMENTS: AAFs were estimated by means of an acute method using data on injury cases from 36 ED studies combined with odds ratios obtained from ED case-cross-over studies. Corresponding AAFs for injuries were estimated by combining population-level data on alcohol consumption obtained from the Global Information System on Alcohol and Health, with corresponding RRs obtained from a previous meta-analysis.
FINDINGS: ED-based injury AAF estimates ranged from 5% (Canada 2002 and the Czech Republic) to 40% (South Africa), with a mean AAF among all studies of 15.4% (18.9% for males and 8.4% for females). Population-based injury AAF estimates ranged from 21% (India) to 51% (Spain and the Czech Republic), with a mean AAF among all country-years of 36.8% (42.5% for males and 22.5% for females). The Pearson correlation coefficient for the two types of injury AAF estimates was 0.09 for the total, 0.06 for males and 0.32 for females.
CONCLUSIONS: Two methods of estimating the injury alcohol-attributable fractions - emergency department data versus population method - produce widely differing results. Across 36 country-years, the mean AAF using the population method was 36.8%, more than twice as large as emergency department data-based acute estimates, which average 15.4%.
DESIGN: Comparative risk assessment.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: ED studies in 27 countries (n = 24 971).
MEASUREMENTS: AAFs were estimated by means of an acute method using data on injury cases from 36 ED studies combined with odds ratios obtained from ED case-cross-over studies. Corresponding AAFs for injuries were estimated by combining population-level data on alcohol consumption obtained from the Global Information System on Alcohol and Health, with corresponding RRs obtained from a previous meta-analysis.
FINDINGS: ED-based injury AAF estimates ranged from 5% (Canada 2002 and the Czech Republic) to 40% (South Africa), with a mean AAF among all studies of 15.4% (18.9% for males and 8.4% for females). Population-based injury AAF estimates ranged from 21% (India) to 51% (Spain and the Czech Republic), with a mean AAF among all country-years of 36.8% (42.5% for males and 22.5% for females). The Pearson correlation coefficient for the two types of injury AAF estimates was 0.09 for the total, 0.06 for males and 0.32 for females.
CONCLUSIONS: Two methods of estimating the injury alcohol-attributable fractions - emergency department data versus population method - produce widely differing results. Across 36 country-years, the mean AAF using the population method was 36.8%, more than twice as large as emergency department data-based acute estimates, which average 15.4%.
Affiliation :
Public Health Institute, Alcohol Research Group, Emeryville, CA, USA
Cote :
Abonnement