An empirical approach to evaluating the validity of alternative low-risk drinking guidelines

Abstract

Introduction and aims: This paper proposes an approach for evaluating the validity of alternative low-risk drinking guidelines.

Design and methods: Twenty-seven alternative guidelines were evaluated in terms of their ability to predict nine measures of concurrent and prospective alcohol-related harm, using longitudinal data from a nationally representative sample of US adults (n = 26 438 to 12 339 depending upon outcome). Parameters compared included sensitivity, specificity, adjusted odds ratios and measures of model fit.

Results: Performance varied by harm. The guidelines that best predicted concurrent alcohol-related harm comprised daily-only limits of 4/3 drinks for men/women, but gender-invariant limits of 4/4 drinks also performed well. Adding weekly limits did little to improve the prediction of concurrent harm. The guidelines that best predicted prospective harm comprised daily limits of 4/4 drinks combined with weekly limits of 14 drinks for men and 7 drinks for women, with weekly limits of 14/14 drinks running second. When concurrent and incident harms were aggregated, daily-only limits of 4/3 drinks performed nearly on a par with the combination of 14/14 drinks per week and 4/3 drinks per day.

Discussion and conclusions: This paper supported gender-specific daily limits and suggested that optimal guidelines might take daily limits from analyses of concurrent harms and weekly limits from analyses of prospective harms. This paper illustrates a mechanism for validating the ability of low-risk drinking guidelines to accurately predict a range of alcohol-related harms, whereby countries could use their own data on consumption and its association with harm to evaluate their low-risk drinking guidelines