Aims The aims of the article are (a) to estimate coverage rates (i.e. the proportion of ‘real consumption’ accounted for by a survey compared with more reliable aggregate consumption data) of the total, the recorded and the beverage-specific annual per capita consumption in 23 European countries, and (b) to investigate differences between regions, and other factors which might be associated with low coverage (prevalence of heavy episodic drinking [HED], survey methodology). Methods Survey data were derived from the Standardised European Alcohol Survey and Harmonising Alcohol-related Measures in European Surveys (number of surveys: 39, years of survey: 2008–2015, adults aged 20–64 years). Coverage rates were calculated at the aggregated level by dividing consumption estimates derived from the surveys by alcohol per capita estimates from a recent global modelling study. Fractional response regression models were used to examine the relative importance of the predictors. Results Large variation in coverage across European countries was observed (average total coverage: 36.5, 95% confidence interval [CI] [33.2; 39.8]), with lowest coverage found for spirits consumption (26.3, 95% CI [21.4; 31.3]). Regarding the second aim, the prevalence of HED was associated with wine- and spirits-specific coverage, explaining 10% in the respective variance. However, neither the consideration of regions nor survey methodology explained much of the variance in coverage estimates, regardless of the scenario. Conclusion The results reiterate that alcohol survey data should not be used to compare or estimate aggregate consumption levels, which may be better reflected by statistics on recorded or total per capita consumption.

Although alcohol and cigarette consumption is lower than in controls, it is common among teenagers with type 1 diabetes, effecting metabolic control and causing the risk of acute diabetes complications. Better prevention strategies should be implemented in this group of patients in their early teen years. What is Known: • Substance use remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality among teenagers with type 1 diabetes. • Current medical literature contains inconsistent data on the prevalence of alcohol and cigarette use among adolescents with type 1 diabetes, mostly due to methodological problems with conducting such surveys. What is New: • Methodological approach: we used a validated questionnaire from the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD) and compared the results to a large national control group of 12,114 healthy students who took part in ESPAD in 2011.

Background. The aim of the study was to explore the prevalence of illicit drug use in a group of Polish adolescents with type 1 diabetes (DM1) in comparison with a national cohort of their healthy peers. Methods. Two hundred and nine adolescents with DM1, aged 15–18 years, were studied in 2013 with an anonymous questionnaire prepared for the European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs (ESPAD). The control group was a representative sample of 12114 students at the same age who took part in ESPAD in 2011. Metabolic control was regarded as good if self-reported HbA1c was <8% or poor if HbA1c was ≥8%. Results. Lifetime prevalence of illicit drug use was lower among adolescents with DM1 than in the control group [58 (28%) versus 5524 (46%), p = 10−5]. Cannabis preparations were the most frequently used substances [38 (18.3%) versus 3976 (33.1%), p = 10−5], followed by tranquilizers, sedatives, and amphetamine. Lifetime and last 12-month use of cannabis were associated with poorer glycemic control (HbA1c ≥ 8%), p < 0.01 and 0.02, respectively. Conclusions. Adolescents with DM1 report using illicit drugs to a lesser extent than their healthy peers. The use of cannabis is associated with a poorer metabolic control in teens with DM1.

Background and aims In recent decades, alcohol drinking in the European Union has been characterized by increasing homogenization of levels of drinking coupled with an overall decrease. This study examined whether we can still distinguish distinct practices of drinking by addressing two research questions: (1) are drinking practices still characterized by the choice of a certain alcoholic beverage; and (2) how do drinking practices vary across countries? Design Cross‐sectional study: latent‐class analyses of drinking variables and fractional response regression analyses of individual characteristics for individual‐level class endorsement probabilities, respectively. Setting Nineteen European countries and one autonomous community. Participants A total of 27 170 past‐year drinkers aged 18–65 years in 2015. Measurements Data were collected through the Standardized European Alcohol Survey included frequency of past‐year drinking, pure alcohol intake per drink day, occurrence of monthly risky single‐occasion drinking and preferred beverage, together with socio‐demographic data. Findings Three latent classes were identified: (1) light to moderate drinking without risky single‐occasion drinking [prevalence: 68.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 66.7–69.3], (2) infrequent heavy drinking (prevalence: 12.6%, 95% CI = 11.5–13.7) and (3) regular drinking with at least monthly risky single‐occasion drinking (prevalence: 19.4%, 95% CI = 18.1–20.9). Drinking classes differed considerably in beverage preference, with women reporting a generally higher share of wine and men of beer drinking. Light to moderate drinking without risky single‐occasion drinking was the predominant drinking practice in all locations except for Lithuania, where infrequent heavy drinking (class 2) was equally popular. Socio‐demographic factors and individual alcohol harm experiences (rapid alcohol on‐line screen) explained up to 20.5% of the variability in class endorsement. Conclusions Beverage preference appears to remain a decisive indicator for distinguishing Europeans’ drinking practices. In most European countries, multiple drinking practices appear to be present.

No ghostwriting declared./Nie występuje zjawisko ghostwriting.