Alcohol-Related Injuries: Evidence for the Prevention Paradox

Abstract

PURPOSEThe risk of an injury increases exponentially with alcohol consumption on a given occasion, but the conclusion that alcohol-related injuries are attributable primarily to heavy drinking may or may not be correct. The prevention paradox states that a large number of people at small risk may contribute more cases of a particular condition than a smaller number of people who are individually at greater risk. We sought to determine the extent to which the prevention paradox applies in the relationship between alcohol consumption and injury. METHODSWe conducted a population-based case-control and case-crossover study in all 3 emergency departments in Boone County, Mo. Data were collected from 2,517 patients with an acute injury and 1,856 age-and sex-matched controls selected by random digit dialing. RESULTSThe population attributable fraction (PAF) associated with drinking in the 6 hours before injury-the proportion of injuries that would not have occurred in the absence of drinking-was 10.6% in case-crossover analysis and 8.5% in casecontrol analysis. The PAF that was due to what is usually considered nonhazardous alcohol consumption (fewer than 5 drinks for men, fewer than 4 for women) was 4.5% in case-crossover analysis and 3.1% in case-control analysis. The PAF that was due to alcohol dependence was 4.0%.CONCLUSIONS Injury is associated more with an occasion of alcohol consumption than with alcohol dependence. A substantial proportion of the PAF that is due to an occasion of alcohol consumption is from what are usually considered low-risk quantities.

Alcohol Availability and Neighborhood Poverty and Their Relationship to Binge Drinking and Related Problems Among Drinkers in Committed Relationships

“…Thus, we may have not captured drinking patterns most likely associated with AOD. This notion is consistent with the “prevention paradox” which notes that drinking problems commonly occur during drinking that is generally typical (Rossow & Romelsjo, 2006; Spurling & Vinson, 2005). …”

A randomized trial of computerized vs. in-person brief intervention for illicit drug use in primary care: Outcomes through 12months

“…The vast majority of individuals who meet diagnostic thresholds for substance use disorders never receive treatment (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Administration (SAMHSA), 2012). Moreover, most of the aggregate health and social harms resulting from substance use are experienced by the large segment of the population whose substance use does not yet rise to such a level that it prompts treatment-seeking (Rossow & Romelsjo, 2006; Spurling & Vinson, 2005). …”

Hardcore Drinking Drivers and Other Contributors to the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Problem: Need For a Comprehensive Approach

“…This raises the issue of the "prevention paradox"-where the contribution of the more numerous lower risk people exceeds that of the much higher risk but smaller group. It has been argued that this applies in the case of alcohol-impaired driving (Gmel et al, 2001;Kreitman, 1986;Skog, 1999;Spurling and Vinson, 2005). The proportion of crashes attributable to each BAC is potentially calculable from the Long Beach/Fort Lauderdale data, but this has not been done.…”