Table 2.
Percentages of abstainers, and of non-hazardous and hazardous alcohol users among the survey responders, with corresponding estimates of non-responders, adjusted for the differing alcohol-related hospitalization rates
| |
Responders |
Non-responders1 |
Adjusted estimate1 |
|||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Material | non-hospitalized % |
hospitalized |
all % | all % | all % | |
| % | RR | |||||
|
2006 cross-sectional sample |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Abstainers |
11.9 |
18.3 |
1.54** |
12.0 |
12.1 |
12.0 |
| Non-hazardous users |
66.8 |
48.1 |
0.72*** |
66.6 |
66.3 |
66.5 |
| Hazardous users |
21.3 |
33.6 |
1.58*** |
21.4 |
21.6 |
21.5 |
| |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
| Internal missing values |
0.9 |
1.8 |
2.01 |
0.9 |
|
|
| Not missing |
99.1 |
98.2 |
0.99 |
99.1 |
|
|
| |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
100.0 |
|
|
|
2002-2007 longitudinal sample |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Abstainers |
9.2 |
14.8 |
1.61* |
9.2 |
9.3 |
9.3 |
| Non-hazardous users |
82.3 |
53.2 |
0.65*** |
82.1 |
81.6 |
81.8 |
| Hazardous users |
8.5 |
32.0 |
3.76*** |
8.7 |
9.1 |
8.9 |
| |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
| Internal missing values |
3.1 |
9.0 |
2.88*** |
3.2 |
|
|
| Not missing |
96.9 |
91.0 |
0.94*** |
96.8 |
|
|
| |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
100.0 |
|
|
|
Both samples |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Abstainers |
10.8 |
17.1 |
1.58*** |
10.9 |
10.9 |
11.0 |
| Non-hazardous users |
73.2 |
49.9 |
0.68*** |
73.0 |
72.6 |
72.8 |
| Hazardous users |
16.0 |
33.0 |
2.06*** |
16.2 |
16.4 |
16.3 |
| |
100.0 |
100.0 |
|
100.0 |
100.0 |
100.0 |
| Internal missing values |
1.8 |
4.6 |
2.48*** |
1.9 |
|
|
| Not missing |
98.2 |
95.4 |
0.97*** |
98.1 |
|
|
| 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||||
*p < 0.05 ** p < 0.01 *** p < 0.001 significance levels are given for the hospitalized in comparison with the non-hospitalized, using Wald chi-square tests for logistic regression models.
1 The estimated rates of abstainers, and non-hazardous and hazardous alcohol users among the non-responders, were assumed to be the same as among the responders within each stratum of hospitalization, i.e., among persons with and without previous alcohol-related hospitalization. The non-responders’ rates were adjusted only for their greater likelihood of previous hospitalization (see Table 1). This adjustment was based on un-weighted numbers. Otherwise, weighted estimates which compensated for the stratification by gender, municipality, and city district were used in the table.