Avon and Wiltshire Partnership NHS Mental Health care Trust, Bristol
National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Drugs and Alcohol Research Programme, Research Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office, London
Office for National Statistics, London
Academic Unit of Psychiatry, Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Correspondence: Dr Jonathan C. Haynes, Academic Unit of Psychiatry, Department of Community Based Medicine, University of Bristol, Cotham House, Cotham Hill, Bristol BS6 6JL,UK. Tel: +44 (0) 117 954 6664; fax: +44 (0) 117 954 6672; e-mail: jon.haynes{at}awp.nhs.uk
Declaration of interest None. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.
![]() |
ABSTRACT |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Aims To examine whether excessive alcohol consumption is a risk factor for anxiety and depression in the general population, and whether anxiety and depression are risk factors for excessive alcohol consumption.
Method Data were analysed from the 18-month follow-up of the Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adults Living in Private Households, 2000 survey.
Results Hazardous and dependent drinking were not associated with onset of anxiety and depression at follow-up. Binge-drinking was non-significantly associated with incident anxiety and depression (adjusted OR=1.36, 95% CI 0.74-2.50). Abstainers were less likely to have new-onset anxiety and depression at follow-up. Anxiety and depression or sub-threshold symptoms at baseline were not associated with incident hazardous or binge-drinking at follow-up, but there was weak evidence linking sub-threshold symptoms with onset of alcohol dependence (adjusted OR=2.04, 95% CI 0.84-4.97).
Conclusions Excessive alcohol consumption was not associated with the onset of anxiety and depression but abstinence was associated with a lower risk. Sub-threshold symptoms were weakly associated with new-onset alcohol dependence.
![]() |
INTRODUCTION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
METHOD |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In total, 3536 participants were selected for follow-up. Of these, 3045 were located by the interviewers. For the remaining 491 (14% of the sample) contact was not possible because the household had moved and could not be traced, or for other reasons, such as the death of the individual. Of the 3045 who were successfully located, 2413 (79%) completed the follow-up interview, 503 (17%) refused to be interviewed, and for 129 (4%) the interviewer was unable to contact the person.
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the London Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committees in England.
Measurement of alcohol use
Most information was collected face-to-face by lay interviewers using
computer-assisted interviewing. However, responses for questions about alcohol
and drug use were directly entered into the computer by the participants
themselves.
In both the baseline and the 18-month follow-up surveys, alcohol use was recorded using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Saunders et al, 1993). The AUDIT comprises ten questions relating to alcohol use and its consequences in the previous 12 months. A score of 8 or more out of 40 has been suggested to denote hazardous alcohol use (Saunders et al, 1993).
Those who scored 10 or more on the AUDIT were asked to complete the Severity of Alcohol Dependence Questionnaire (SADQ; Stockwell et al, 1983) to assess dependence. The SADQ consists of 20 questions, covering a range of symptoms of dependence, each scored from 0 to 3. The reference period is the 6 months prior to the interview. A total score of 3 or less indicates no dependence, a score of 419 indicates mild dependence, 2034 indicates moderate dependence and 3560 indicates severe dependence.
Alcohol use was classified in four ways:
Alcohol use above government guidelines was based on two AUDIT questions concerning the frequency and amount of alcohol consumed (Table 1). Those classified as exceeding guidelines were identified using the following combinations of responses: men A4 B5, A5 B4, A5 B5 and women A4 B4, A4 B5, A5 B3, A5 B4, A5 B5.
|
At baseline the AUDIT assessed use over the year prior to interview; at the follow-up interview the reference time period related to the whole period between interviews. The SADQ assessed dependence in the 6 months prior to interview in both surveys.
Measurement of psychiatric morbidity
Anxiety and depression was used as a diagnostic category, as most people
with significant psychiatric problems have symptoms of both, and many meet the
criteria for more than one diagnosis. The CISR has been validated as a
measure of common mental disorders (Lewis
et al, 1992), covering diagnoses of depressive illness,
generalised anxiety disorder, obsessivecompulsive disorder, panic
disorder, phobias, and mixed anxiety and depressive disorder. It comprises 14
sections, with possible scores within each ranging from 0 to 4 (except the
section on depressive ideas which has a maximum score of 5). A total score of
12 or more was used to indicate the presence of disorder. Owing to questions
relating only to the previous week, a true measure of incident anxiety and
depression was not obtainable for the period between baseline and follow-up,
as cases may have presented and then subsequently recovered. However, this
phrase, or new onset, will be used as shorthand with the
understanding that a random misclassification may have occurred. It is
recognised that the CISR can be used to diagnose generalised anxiety
disorder, and yet produce a score less than 12. This occurred in very few
cases at baseline, and so the ensuing degree of bias was small.
Data-set
In total, 2406 participants completed the baseline and follow-up surveys.
Of these, 750 had a CISR of 12 or more at baseline and were therefore
excluded from analyses examining predictors of anxiety and depression at 18
months follow-up. The cohort therefore comprised 1656 individuals, of
whom 1578 (95%) had data available on a range of potential confounders at
baseline (indicators of socio-economic status, life events, type of area
(urban/rural), size of primary support group, current smoking habits, illicit
drug use in the previous year, use of psychotropic drugs or therapy, hospital
treatment in the past 3 months for mental health problems, and consultations
with mental health professional(s) in the past year).
Statistical analysis
All analyses were conducted using Stata version 8
(Stata Corporation, 2003). Probability weights were used to account for the stratified sampling procedure
and non-response in all analyses.
Logistic regression was used to examine the association between alcohol use and onset of anxiety and depression (CISR score 512) at 18 months. Univariate associations (in terms of odds ratios and their 95% CI) are reported. Associations were adjusted for baseline CISR score and potential confounding factors, both individually and cumulatively.
Further analyses examined the association between anxiety and depression at baseline and alcohol use (binge-drinking, hazardous drinking or dependence) at follow-up. Individuals who were classified as binge drinkers (nd 752), hazardous drinkers (nd 669), or dependent on alcohol (nd 309) at baseline were excluded from these additional analyses. Complete data, including information on possible confounders, were available for 1562, 1645 and 1987 individuals, respectively.
![]() |
RESULTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
Eighteen per cent of the population reported binge-drinking at least once per week; 7% of the population were dependent on alcohol (Table 2); 11% of the population reported abstinence from alcohol over the preceding 12 months (Table 2). Overall, alcohol use was more prevalent among men (Table 2); 41% of men reported monthly binges compared with 21% of women. Men were almost six times more likely to be dependent on alcohol (weighted prevalence 11.6%) than women (2.0%; Table 2).
Associations between baseline alcohol consumption and anxiety and depression at follow-up
Of the 1656 individuals who were not classified as having anxiety and
depression at baseline, 184 had a CISR score of 12 or more at follow-up
(weighted prevalence 6.3%, 95% CI 5.07.6). Hazardous drinkers (AUDIT
score 8) did not have an increased odds ratio of developing anxiety and
depression at follow-up compared with non-hazardous drinkers (adjusted odds
ratio=0.76, 95% CI 0.421.36). Those who had not consumed alcohol in the
preceding 12 months were less likely to develop anxiety and depression at
follow-up compared with non-hazardous drinkers. This association strengthened
after adjustment for baseline CISR and potential confounders (adjusted
odds ratio=0.36, 95% CI 0.170.77). Those individuals who drank above
government guidelines at baseline had a comparable odds of anxiety and
depression at followup as those who drank within recommended limits (adjusted
odds ratio=0.87, 95% CI 0.431.74)
(Table 3).
|
Unadjusted analyses suggested that those who reported binge-drinking at least once per month were more likely to develop anxiety and depression at follow-up than non-binge drinkers (odds ratio=1.58, 95% CI 0.972.56). However, when adjusted for baseline CISR and potential confounders, this association was attenuated (odds ratio=1.36, 95% CI 0.742.50). Stratifying drinkers according to the frequency of binge-drinking provided little evidence for a doseresponse relationship (Table 3).
Those classified as dependent on alcohol at baseline (AUDIT 10 and
SADQ
4) had an increased likelihood of anxiety and depression at
follow-up (unadjusted odds ratio=1.61, 95% CI 0.912.87), although this
association was not statistically significant. Again, this association
attenuated when adjusted for baseline CISR and other confounders
(adjusted odds ratio=1.09, 95% CI 0.552.17).
Irrespective of the method used to classify alcohol consumption, those who had not drunk alcohol in the previous 12 months were significantly less likely to have anxiety and depression at follow-up (Table 3).
Stratifying by gender showed some differences (Table 4). Men who binged at least once per month had a threefold increased risk of anxiety and depression at follow-up after adjustment for confounders. In contrast, no excess was observed for female binge drinkers. However, a test for interaction did not provide statistical support (P=0.30).
|
Associations between baseline anxiety and depression and alcohol consumption at follow-up
There was no excess of monthly binge-drinking at follow-up in those with
sub-threshold symptoms (CISR score 611) or anxiety and
depression (CISR score 12) at baseline (adjusted odds ratio=1.04,
95% CI 0.581.84 and 0.95, 0.511.80, respectively;
Table 5), nor was there an
excess of hazardous drinking in these groups (adjusted odds ratio=1.27, 95% CI
0.762.12 and 1.05, 0.532.07, respectively). However, those with
CISR scores above 5 were almost twice as likely to develop alcohol
dependence at followup as those with lower scores (CISR score
05), although this failed to reach statistical significance
(Table 5).
|
Again, stratification by gender showed some differences (Table 6). Men with sub-threshold symptoms or anxiety and depression at baseline had approximately a twofold increased odds of binge-drinking at follow-up. In contrast, women with anxiety and depression had a reduced odds of binge-drinking at follow-up. However, this interaction was not statistically significant (P=0.23). There was evidence that men with anxiety and depression and women with sub-threshold symptoms at baseline had an increased odds of alcohol dependence at follow-up. This bordered on statistical significance (P=0.07).
|
![]() |
DISCUSSION |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Findings
Hazardous drinking, as defined by an AUDIT score of 8 or greater, was not
associated with incident anxiety and depression at follow-up. Binge-drinking
(on at least a monthly basis) was associated with an excess of anxiety and
depression, but this did not reach statistical significance. After adjustment
for confounders, there was no association between dependent drinking (AUDIT
score 10 and SADQ
4) and onset of anxiety and depression at
followup. Those who had not consumed alcohol within the previous 12 months
consistently had a reduced odds of developing anxiety and depression.
Analyses stratified by gender suggested that men who binge drank (on at least a monthly basis) had a threefold increased odds of anxiety and depression at followup compared with men who did not binge drink. No such association was observed for women.
The reverse analysis did not demonstrate an excess of hazardous or binge-drinking at follow-up in those with anxiety and depression at baseline. There was some evidence that men with sub-threshold symptoms or anxiety and depression at baseline had an increased odds of binge-drinking at follow-up, although this gender differential was not statistically significant. Those with sub-threshold symptoms or anxiety and depression at baseline had a twofold increased odds of reporting alcohol dependence at follow-up. This was of borderline significance. Stratification by gender demonstrated that men with anxiety and depression at baseline had a twofold increased odds of alcohol dependence at follow-up, whereas women with sub-threshold symptoms had a fivefold increased odds of dependence. The test of interaction bordered on statistical significance.
Comparison with previous longitudinal studies
Our findings are in direct contrast to an early meta-analysis
(Hartka et al, 1991)
that reported a significant correlation between baseline consumption of
alcohol and depression at follow-up based on data from eight longitudinal
studies. However, in this analysis control of confounders was limited to age,
gender and interval between measurements.
Our findings are also in direct contrast to those of Gilman & Abraham (2001) who observed that after adjustment for confounders, including baseline depression score, age, socio-economic status, ethnicity, and site, women (odds ratio=3.52) and men (odds ratio=1.77) who were dependent on alcohol at baseline had a significantly increased odds of major depression according to DSMIV criteria (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) after 1 year of followup. The odds ratio for men falls within the 95% CI calculated for the present study, although that for women does not.
Overall, our findings were consistent with those of Wang & Patten (2001) who analysed a longitudinal cohort of the Canadian National Population Health Survey, numbering 11 000. Taking DSMIV major depression as an end-point, rather than the criteria used in our study, they observed no excess morbidity among those who drank daily, those who drank in binges (more than five drinks), those who had more than one drink daily, and among drinkers in general. Alcohol dependence was not considered. Similarly, in a randomly selected community cohort with follow-up at 3 and 7 years, Moscato et al (1997) found no excess incidence of depressive symptoms among those with alcohol problems (defined as a DSMIV diagnosis of alcohol dependence or abuse or drinking more than five drinks a day on one or more occasions per week).
Wang & Patten (2001) reported an excess of major depression in binge-drinking women compared with non-binge drinkers. This contrasts with our finding that men who binge drank had an increased odds of anxiety and depression at followup. These gender-specific differences are difficult to interpret given the differences in definitions of alcohol consumption and psychiatric morbidity.
Moscato et al (1997) also performed the reverse comparison and noted that depressive symptoms were associated with incident alcohol problems in women but not in men. After adjustment for confounders, this effect among women was noted to be stronger in the short (3 years) rather than longer term (7 years). In our study, subclinical anxiety and depression (CISR 611) was associated with an increased odds of alcohol dependence at followup, with evidence that this effect was stronger among women, although confidence intervals were wide. For this reason, interpretation of the gender-specific estimates must be viewed with caution.
Our findings are partially consistent with those of Lipton (1994). Data from the Los Angeles Epidemiological Catchment Area study showed evidence for a U-shaped relationship between alcohol use at time 1 and depressive symptomatology 1 year later, in the presence of financial strain and negative life events; heavy drinking, when compared with lightmoderate or moderate drinking, was associated with a 50% increase in depressive symptom score. However, a similar increase in depressive symptom score was observed when abstinent or light drinking was compared with lightmoderate or moderate drinking. This effect was attenuated in the absence of negative events or financial strain. This association was only observed in the sub-group analysis; when all participants were included in the analysis, a suggestion of a U-shaped relationship remained, but with confidence intervals that did not support a difference between drinking groups. Their finding of increased risk among non-drinkers is at odds with the consistent finding in the present study of reduced risk among non-drinkers. The difference in findings may be because the present study considered more possible confounding variables, including those relating to previous mental illness and ongoing psychotropic therapy. Without consideration of such variables the estimate of the association might have been biased by non-drinkers who were abstinent owing to previous mental illness and were at risk of relapse, therefore giving a false impression of the risk/benefits associated with abstinence.
Existing cross-sectional and longitudinal studies have considered a diverse array of patterns of abnormal alcohol consumption, including DSM alcohol dependence (Swendsen et al, 1998; Gilman & Abraham, 2001), DSM alcohol abuse (Swendsen et al, 1998), alcohol problems (Moscato et al, 1997), direct measures of consumption (Wang & Patten, 2001) and measures of binge-drinking (Wang & Patten, 2001). Different patterns of alcohol consumption may be implicated with different psychiatric sequelae, and therefore explain inconsistencies between studies.
Strengths and limitations
By using national population data, we have avoided the selection and
referral biases inherent in studies of clinic-based patients. Observer bias
was eliminated by the participants themselves entering data directly onto a
laptop computer. The study design reduced the chance of recall bias, as might
be found in a retrospective casecontrol study. In addition, well
validated tools were used to measure alcohol consumption (AUDIT and
SADQ; Stockwell et al,
1983; Saunders et al,
1993) and anxiety and depression (CISR;
Lewis et al,
1992).
The definition of drinking above government guidelines was calculated using two items from the AUDIT. A direct measure of the quantity of alcohol consumed was lacking and it is probable that our figures are an underestimate. Indeed, prior community surveys have estimated that 27% of men and 15% of women drink above government guidelines (http://www.performance.doh.gov.uk/hpsss/tbl_a9.htm), which is substantially higher than our estimates (9 and 3%, respectively). Asking participants to recall the amount of alcohol consumed over a shorter period (for example 1 week) would provide a more accurate estimate of the alcohol consumed, although the representativeness of such data may be questioned.
Although a comparatively large number of individuals were surveyed in this study, the power to detect associations for alcohol dependence, in particular, was limited. The possibility of a type II error remains. Others have also commented on their limited ability to detect associations for particular patterns of drinking (Wang & Paten, 2001).
There is a high probability of random misclassification, owing to the true incidence over the follow-up period not being obtained, but rather a snap-shot picture of mental health for the week prior to follow-up. It is therefore possible that cases of anxiety and depression might have emerged and subsequently recovered, and therefore might not be counted. This random misclassification would affect all participants, but would make a statistically significant result less likely.
This study (as others; Wang & Patten, 2001) has a relatively short follow-up period (18 months). A longer period of follow-up might have resulted in significantly more at-risk drinkers developing anxiety and depression. This is particularly relevant, as the analysis adjusted for baseline CISR and AUDIT scores. The association between baseline alcohol consumption and onset of anxiety and depression, and vice versa, might have been underestimated by correcting for baseline CISR and AUDIT scores, which as measures of subclinical disease may be on the causal pathway. However, unadjusted data showed little evidence of a significant association, and therefore it is unlikely that overadjustment is the sole explanation for the lack of association.
Anxiety and depression and alcohol consumption
In summary, hazardous drinkers did not have increased odds of anxiety and
depression at follow-up; there was a suggestion that binge-drinking and
dependence are risk factors for anxiety and depression, but sample size was
insufficient for firm conclusions. However, those who abstained from alcohol
had a reduced risk. Participants with sub-threshold symptoms or anxiety and
depression at baseline had increased odds of reporting alcohol dependence at
18 months; this bordered on statistical significance.
Public health implications
The protective effect of abstinence compared with an
acceptable drinking pattern is most notable. This suggests that
a safe level of drinking (in terms of the prevention of anxiety
and depression) may be lower than previously recognised. The recent
publication of the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England
(Prime Ministers Strategy Unit,
2004) sets out more conservative guidelines for drinking:
34 units per day for men and 23 units per day for women, but
such guidelines were devised to reduce both the social and physical problems
associated with excessive alcohol consumption, not only the risk of anxiety
and depression. Further work is therefore required to examine the effect of
drinking at a lower threshold on the risk of anxiety and depression before
guidance can be provided.
![]() |
Clinical Implications and Limitations |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
LIMITATIONS
![]() |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
![]() |
REFERENCES |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Gilman, S. E. & Abraham, H. D. (2001) A longitudinal study of the order of onset of alcohol dependence and major depression. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 63, 277 -286.[CrossRef][Medline]
Hartka, E., Johnstone, B., Leino, V., et al (1991) A meta-analysis of depressive symptomatology and alcohol consumption over time. British Journal of Addiction, 86, 1283 -1298.[Medline]
Lewis, G., Pelosi, A. J., Araya, R., et al (1992) Measuring psychiatric disorder in the community: a standardised assessment for use by lay interviewers. Psychological Medicine, 22, 465 -486.[Medline]
Lipton, R. (1994) The effect of moderate alcohol use on the relationship between stress and depression. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 1913 -1917.[Abstract]
Miller, N. S., Klamen, D., Hoffmann, N. G., et al (1996) Prevalence of depression and alcohol and other drug dependence in addictions treatment populations. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 28, 111 -124.[Medline]
Moscato, B., Russell, M., Zielezny, M., et al (1997) Gender differences in the relation between depressive symptoms and alcohol problems: a longitudinal perspective. American Journal of Epidemiology, 146, 966 -974.[Abstract]
Prime Ministers Strategy Unit (2004) Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy for England. London: Strategy Unit. http://www.strategy.gov.uk/downloads/su/alcohol/pdf/CabOffce%20.AlcoholHar.pdf
Saunders, J. B., Aasland, O. G., Babor, T. F., et al (1993) Development of the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT): WHO collaborative project on early detection of persons with harmful alcohol consumption-II. Addiction, 88, 791 -804.[Medline]
Schuckit, M. (1983) Alcoholic patients with secondary depression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 711 -714.[Abstract]
Singleton, N. & Lewis, G. (2003) Better or Worse: A Longitudinal Study of the Mental Health of Adults Living in Private Households in Great Britain. London: Stationery Office.
Singleton, N., Bumpstead, R., OBrien, M., et al (2001) Psychiatric Morbidity Among Adults Living in Private Households, 2000. London: Stationery Office.
Stata Corporation (2003) Stata Release 8.0. College Station, TX: Stata.
Stockwell, T., Murphy, D. & Hodgson, R. (1983) The severity of alcohol dependence questionnaire: its use, reliability, and validity. British Journal of Addiction, 78, 145 -155.[Medline]
Swendsen, J., Merikangas, K., Canino, G., et al (1998) The comorbidity of alcoholism with anxiety and depressive disorders in four geographic communities. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 39, 176 -184.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wang, J. & Patten, S. B. (2001) Alcohol consumption and major depression: findings from a follow-up study. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 46, 632 -638.[Medline]
Received for publication September 16, 2004. Revision received January 27, 2005. Accepted for publication February 9, 2005.
Related articles in BJP:
HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |