Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2020 Jul 1.
Published in final edited form as: Addiction. 2019 Apr 12;114(7):1173–1182. doi: 10.1111/add.14600

Table 4.

Latent Binge Drinking Trajectory Classes Associated with Individual Alcohol Policiesa (n=2753).

Binge Drinking Trajectory Classes (reference: Low-Risk; n=1046)
Overall Significance Test
Escalating Chronic Late-Onset Decreasing
(n=666) (n=388) (n=361) (n=292)
Models RRR 95% CI RRR 95% CI RRR 95% CI RRR 95% CI F-testb p-value
Individual Underage Youth Policies (Model 3)c,e
 Possession 1.12 0.93 1.34 1.04 0.82 1.32 0.97 0.76 1.24 1.22 0.95 1.58 0.69 0.61
 Purchase 1.28 1.03 1.58 1.29 0.90 1.85 1.01 0.75 1.38 1.00 0.78 1.29 2.78 0.06
 Consumption 1.16 0.76 1.76 0.99 0.70 1.41 0.80 0.56 1.12 0.63 0.43 0.93 5.07 0.01
 Internal Possession 0.79 0.47 1.32 0.85 0.50 1.45 1.43 1.16 1.76 0.90 0.68 1.19 5.09 0.01
 Use/Lose 1.00 0.76 1.31 0.86 0.61 1.23 1.28 1.04 1.57 1.05 0.84 1.32 2.61 0.07
 False ID: Youth 0.86 0.67 1.11 0.78 0.50 1.21 1.13 0.81 1.60 1.95 1.22 3.12 4.15 0.01
Individual Alcohol Provider Policies (Model 4)d,e
 Furnishing 1.52 1.07 2.16 1.51 1.01 2.26 1.17 0.88 1.56 1.33 1.01 1.75 1.94 0.15
 Age of On-Premise Server 1.24 0.87 1.77 0.84 0.53 1.34 1.03 0.66 1.62 0.68 0.38 1.20 3.63 0.02
 Age of On-Premise Bartender 0.99 0.72 1.36 1.04 0.69 1.58 1.20 0.80 1.78 1.30 0.88 1.93 0.51 0.73
 Age of Off-Premise Seller 0.58 0.32 1.05 0.52 0.32 0.85 1.52 0.91 2.52 0.94 0.63 1.41 6.13 <0.01
 Keg Registration 1.14 0.94 1.38 1.03 0.77 1.39 0.95 0.74 1.22 1.09 0.89 1.32 0.89 0.49
 RBS Training 1.19 1.04 1.36 1.21 0.89 1.65 0.99 0.76 1.29 0.89 0.72 1.10 3.10 0.04
 False ID: Retailer Support 0.82 0.58 1.16 0.83 0.52 1.32 0.84 0.59 1.21 0.82 0.59 1.14 0.46 0.76
 Hosting Underage Drinking Parties 0.84 0.52 1.34 0.64 0.34 1.20 1.08 0.68 1.70 1.01 0.71 1.45 2.15 0.12
 Dram Shop Liability 1.34 0.99 1.81 0.97 0.62 1.51 0.95 0.63 1.44 1.30 0.74 2.28 2.29 0.10
 Social Host Liability 0.83 0.72 0.96 0.92 0.65 1.30 1.00 0.71 1.40 1.00 0.80 1.25 2.39 0.09
Individual General Policies (Model 5)c,d,e
 False ID: Suppliers 0.92 0.75 1.13 0.91 0.71 1.17 1.12 0.88 1.43 0.87 0.61 1.23 1.71 0.19
 State Alcohol Control 1.22 0.87 1.72 1.04 0.66 1.62 0.91 0.64 1.29 1.07 0.84 1.35 0.82 0.53
 Sunday Sales 0.93 0.79 1.09 1.02 0.83 1.26 0.89 0.64 1.25 1.02 0.88 1.18 0.61 0.66

Relative risk ratio (RRR); Confidence Interval (CI).

a

Policy scores were standardized to US national distribution. Higher scores indicated weaker policies.

b

F-tests had 4 and 18 degrees of freedom for the numerator and denominator, respectively.

c

Model controlled for alcohol provider policy score.

d

Model controlled for underage youth policy score.

e

Model controlled for neighborhood (median age, socioeconomic disadvantage) and individual factors (sex, race/ethnicity, family affluence).s