Association between experience of racial discrimination and hazardous alcohol use among Maori in Aotearoa New Zealand.

AIMS: To test whether there is a positive association between experience of racial discrimination and hazardous alcohol use among New Zealand Maori and whether racial discrimination mediates hazardous alcohol use in this group. DESIGN: A cross-sectional mediation analysis using a stratified and nationally representative cross-sectional health survey collected from 2016 to 2017 in New Zealand. SETTING: New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: We used data from 9884 participants who identified as New Zealand European (7341; 56.9% female) or Maori (2543; 60.5% female) in the 2016-17 New Zealand Health Survey. MEASUREMENTS: We included reports from demographic items (sex, age, ethnicity), the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (AUDIT) and experiences of past year discrimination. We conducted mediation analysis with Maori identification as the predictor, hazardous drinking as the binary outcome (0 = AUDIT score less than 8, 1 = 8+) and discrimination as the binary mediator (0 = no discrimination, 1 = experienced racial discrimination). Age, sex and deprivation index were included as covariates. FINDINGS: Maori were more likely to experience discrimination than New Zealand Europeans, and both Maori identification and experiencing discrimination were associated with elevated levels of hazardous alcohol use, P < 0.05. The association between Maori ethnicity on hazardous drinking was partially mediated by discrimination (34.7%, 95% confidence interval 9.70%, 59.60%). CONCLUSION: The association between Maori ethnicity and hazardous drinking in New Zealand may be partially mediated by experience of discrimination.

The accuracy and promise of personal breathalysers for research: Steps toward a cost-effective reliable measure of alcohol intoxication?

OBJECTIVE: Technology is continuing to shape the way we collect health data, including data on alcohol use. A number of technologies are being developed to objectively measure intoxication 'in the wild' without relying on self-report; the most immediate solution may be the use of personal breathalysers. In this study, we aimed to determine whether a cost-effective personal breathalyser would perform in a similar manner to a device used for roadside breath testing. METHOD: We intercepted young adults (n = 337; 45% men) outside three concerts, administered 5-min interviews, and asked for breath samples on two devices (a personal breathalyser and a police-grade breathalyser). RESULTS: Participants reported having consumed an average of 7.3 standard drinks before the interview and had a mean Blood Alcohol Content of 0.077 g/dl on the police-grade device and 0.085 g/dl on the personal device. Difference scores suggested the personal breathalyser was more likely to over report Blood Alcohol Content (bias = 0.008 g/dl). CONCLUSION: Although the personal device was more likely to over report Blood Alcohol Content compared with the police-grade device, the results suggest that personal devices could be used as a measure of Blood Alcohol Content when collecting data outside of the lab.