Hazardous, harmful, and dependent alcohol use in healthcare professionals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Healthcare professionals work in high-pressured and demanding environments, which has been linked to the use of alcohol as a coping strategy. This international review aimed (i) to determine the pooled prevalence of hazardous, harmful, dependent, and frequent binge drinking in healthcare professionals, and (ii) to explore factors associated with variation in these outcomes. Methods: Scopus, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched from 2003 to 17th November 2022, for studies reporting a prevalence estimate for any outcome among healthcare professionals. Random-effects meta-analyses determined pooled prevalence estimates. Sub-group analyses were conducted, stratifying the meta-analyses by pandemic period vs pre-pandemic period. Meta-regressions explored factors that were associated with variation in the outcomes. PROSPERO (CRD42020173119). Results: After screening 9,108 records, 64 studies were identified as eligible. The pooled prevalence was 19.98% [95% Confidence Intervals [CI]: 16.05-24.23%] for hazardous alcohol use (K = 52), 3.17% [95% CI: 0.95-6.58%] for harmful drinking (K = 8), 14.59% [95% CI: 7.16-25.05%] for dependent drinking (K = 7), and 17.71% [95% CI: 8.34-29.63%] for frequent binge drinking (K = 11). The prevalence of hazardous drinking was greater during the pandemic (28.19%) compared with pre-pandemic estimates (17.95%), though this was not statistically significant (p = 0.049). Studies including all hospital staff (32.04%) showed higher prevalence estimates for hazardous drinking compared with studies of doctors (16.78%) and nurses (27.02%). Conclusion: Approximately one fifth of healthcare professionals drink to hazardous levels, with higher prevalence estimates observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. It may be that healthcare professionals used alcohol to cope with the additional trauma and stressors. Further research is needed to investigate whether this is sustained in the post-pandemic period.

Energy labelling of alcoholic drinks: An important or inconsequential obesity policy?

Alcohol is calorie dense, but unlike food products, alcoholic drinks tend to be exempt from nutritional labelling laws that require energy content information to be displayed on packaging or at point of purchase. This review provides a perspective on the likely efficacy of alcoholic drink energy labelling as a public health policy to reduce obesity and discusses key questions to be addressed by future research. First, the contribution that alcohol makes to population level daily energy intake and obesity is outlined. Next, consumer need for alcohol energy labelling and the potential impacts on both consumer and industry behavior are discussed. Pathways and mechanisms by which energy labelling of alcoholic drinks could reduce obesity are considered, as well as possible unintended consequences of alcoholic drink energy labelling. Would widespread energy labelling of alcoholic drinks reduce obesity? The unclear effect that alcohol has on population level obesity, the modest contribution calories from alcohol make to daily energy intake and limited impact nutritional labelling policies tend to have on behavior, suggest alcohol energy labelling may have limited impact on population obesity prevalence as a standalone policy. However, there are a number of questions that will need to be answered by future research to make definitive conclusions on the potential for alcohol energy labelling policies to reduce obesity.

The impact of alcohol priming on craving and motivation to drink: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: An initial dose of alcohol can motivate-or prime-further drinking and may precipitate (re)lapse and bingeing. Lab-based studies have investigated the alcohol priming effect; however, heterogeneity in designs has resulted in some inconsistent findings. The aims of this meta-analysis were to (i) determine the pooled effect size for motivation to drink following priming, measured by alcohol consumption and craving, and (ii) examine whether design characteristics influenced any priming effect. METHODS: Literature searches of PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus in October 2020 (updated October 2021) identified lab-based alcohol priming studies that assessed effect of priming on motivation to drink. A tailored risk-of-bias tool assessed quality of lab-based studies. Random effects meta-analyses were computed on outcome data from 38 studies comparing the effect of a priming dose of alcohol against control on subsequent alcohol consumption/self-reported craving. Study characteristics that might have affected outcomes were design type (within/between-participant), dose of prime, time of motivation assessment, type of control drink (placebo alcohol/soft drink). RESULTS: Relative to control, alcohol had a small-to-moderate priming effect on subsequent alcohol consumption (standardised mean difference [SMD] = 0.336 [95% CI, 0.171, 0.500]) and craving (SMD = 0.431 [95% CI, 0.306, 0.555]). Aspects of study design differentially affected consumption and craving. The size of the priming dose had no effect on consumption, but larger doses were sometimes associated with greater craving (with craving generally following the blood alcohol curve). Alcohol priming effects for consumption, but not craving, were smaller when compared with placebo, relative to soft drink, control. CONCLUSIONS: Lab-based alcohol priming studies are a valid paradigm from which to investigate the impact of acute intoxication on alcohol motivation. Designs are needed that assess the impact of acute consumption on motivation to drink in more varied and realistic ways.