Abstract

Aims: To describe the epidemiology of heavy alcohol use in Ukraine, using data from the world mental health (WMH) survey in Ukraine. Methods: The WMH composite international diagnostic interview was administered in 2002 to a national probability sample of Ukrainian adults (n = 4725). An algorithm for classifying heavy use in the past year was developed from self-reports about the quantity and frequency of drinking, and its convergent validity was demonstrated. Prevalence rates and socio-demographic risk factors were examined separately for men and women. Results: The 12-month rates of heavy alcohol use were 38.7% in men and 8.5% in women (22.0% overall). Among heavy alcohol users, 92% of men and 52% of women consumed at least 80 g of ethanol in a typical drinking day on a monthly basis in the year before the interview. The most significant risk factors in men and women were age (26–54 years for men; 18–25 years for women), living in the Southeast region, being in the labour force whether employed or unemployed, and for men, low education and being the father of a young child. A highly significant linear relationship of number of risk factors with heavy alcohol use was found for both sexes. Conclusions: The rates for men were similar to those reported in a Russian national survey with the exception of Southeast Ukraine where the rate was >10% higher. The highest rates were among men who were middle-aged, fathers and unemployed. Future prospective studies are needed to assess the impact of heavy alcohol use on Ukrainian health, mental health and occupational and social functioning.

(Received 30 September 2004; first review notified 10 November 2004; in revised form 2 February 2005; accepted 8 March 2005)

INTRODUCTION

In the decade following 1991, when Ukraine became an independent country, its population declined by >6%, to 48 457 100 (Kuzio, 2003). This change is partially attributable to an increase in the crude death rate from 11.6/1000 in 1989 (Steshenko, 1997) to 15.4/1000 in 2000 (Eurostat, 2002) and to a corresponding decline in life expectancy by 4.5 years for men and 2.3 years for women (World Health Organization, 2003). The increased death rate has disproportionately occurred in men of pre-retirement age (Steshenko, 1997). Similar changes in mortality have occurred in Russia where the leading causes of death among pre-elderly men include cardiovascular disease, accidents, alcohol poisoning and cirrhosis of the liver. Heavy alcohol use is one of the key risk factors associated with such premature mortality (Nemtsov, 1998, Nemtsov, 1999; Chenet et al., 1998, Chenet et al., 2001; Malyutina et al., 2002). As part of the recently conducted Ukraine-world mental health (WMH) survey (Bromet et al., 2004), we assessed the quantity and frequency of alcohol use in a national probability sample. This paper focuses on the prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of heavy alcohol use.

Information about rates of heavy drinking in former Soviet Union and Eastern bloc countries is available from government data on per capita consumption and several national and municipal surveys (Table 1). The rates of monthly heavy alcohol use range from 12% in Krakow (Bobak et al., 2004) to 82% in Udmurtia (Pakriev et al., 1998), and rates of daily heavy use range from 3% in Lithuania (McKee et al., 2000) to 18% in Bulgaria (Balabanova and McKee 1999), reflecting differences in the definitions of heavy consumption, the regions surveyed and the sampling methods employed.

Table 1.

Alcohol use surveys in former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc Countries

Citation
 
Site
 
Study
 
n
 
Age (years)
 
Year
 
Response rate (%)
 
Findings
 
National surveys        
    Cockerham, 2000 Russia RLMSb 8402 16–102 1995 80.0 Frequent users were males, age 30–39 years 
    Bobak et al., 1999 Russia NRBSa 1599 18–65+ 1996 66.2 Monthly binge: 31% men; 5% women 
    Balabanova and McKee, 1999 Bulgaria – 1550 18+ 1997 96.9 Daily binge: 18.2% men; 0.8% women 
    McKee et al., 2000 Baltics – Estonia: 2010 19–64 1997 Estonia: 67.3% Daily binge: 2–9% men; 0.2–0.5% women 
   Latvia: 2258   Latvia: 77.7%  
   Lithuania: 2139   Lithuania: 74.1%  
Municipal surveys        
    Stack et al., 1994 Moscow, Russia Moscow Oblast survey 374 16+ 1992 68 – 
    Malyutina et al., 2001 Novosibirsk, Russia WHO Wave 1: 1661 25–64 Wave 1: 1985–1986 71.0–73.0 1994–1995: Monthly binge: 50% men; 5% women. 
  MONICAc Wave 2: 1700  Wave 2: 1988–1989   
   Wave 3: 3050  Wave 3: 1994–1995   
    Pakriev et al., 1998 Udmurtia, Russia – 855 18–65 1995 85.9 Monthly binge: 82% men; 11% women. 
    Carlson, 2001 Taganrog, Russia Taganrog Household Wave survey 2191 18–70+ Wave 1: 1993–1994 Wave 1: 91.0 1998: 160 grams pure ethanol/week: 14% men; 1% women. 
     Wave 2: 1998 Wave 2: 81.0  
    Bobak et al., 2004 Novosibirsk, Russia Krakow, Poland Karvina-Havirov, Czech Republic HAPIEEd Novosibirsk: 990 45–64 1999–2000 Novosibirsk: 70% Monthly binge: Males: Novosibirsk: 30% Krakow: 2% Karvina-Havirov: 17% 
   Krakow: 576   Krakow: 65%  
   Karvina-Havirov: 677   Koruina–Hauirou: 71% Females: Novosibirsk: 1% Krakow: 2% Karvina-Havirov: 4% 
Citation
 
Site
 
Study
 
n
 
Age (years)
 
Year
 
Response rate (%)
 
Findings
 
National surveys        
    Cockerham, 2000 Russia RLMSb 8402 16–102 1995 80.0 Frequent users were males, age 30–39 years 
    Bobak et al., 1999 Russia NRBSa 1599 18–65+ 1996 66.2 Monthly binge: 31% men; 5% women 
    Balabanova and McKee, 1999 Bulgaria – 1550 18+ 1997 96.9 Daily binge: 18.2% men; 0.8% women 
    McKee et al., 2000 Baltics – Estonia: 2010 19–64 1997 Estonia: 67.3% Daily binge: 2–9% men; 0.2–0.5% women 
   Latvia: 2258   Latvia: 77.7%  
   Lithuania: 2139   Lithuania: 74.1%  
Municipal surveys        
    Stack et al., 1994 Moscow, Russia Moscow Oblast survey 374 16+ 1992 68 – 
    Malyutina et al., 2001 Novosibirsk, Russia WHO Wave 1: 1661 25–64 Wave 1: 1985–1986 71.0–73.0 1994–1995: Monthly binge: 50% men; 5% women. 
  MONICAc Wave 2: 1700  Wave 2: 1988–1989   
   Wave 3: 3050  Wave 3: 1994–1995   
    Pakriev et al., 1998 Udmurtia, Russia – 855 18–65 1995 85.9 Monthly binge: 82% men; 11% women. 
    Carlson, 2001 Taganrog, Russia Taganrog Household Wave survey 2191 18–70+ Wave 1: 1993–1994 Wave 1: 91.0 1998: 160 grams pure ethanol/week: 14% men; 1% women. 
     Wave 2: 1998 Wave 2: 81.0  
    Bobak et al., 2004 Novosibirsk, Russia Krakow, Poland Karvina-Havirov, Czech Republic HAPIEEd Novosibirsk: 990 45–64 1999–2000 Novosibirsk: 70% Monthly binge: Males: Novosibirsk: 30% Krakow: 2% Karvina-Havirov: 17% 
   Krakow: 576   Krakow: 65%  
   Karvina-Havirov: 677   Koruina–Hauirou: 71% Females: Novosibirsk: 1% Krakow: 2% Karvina-Havirov: 4% 
a

New Russian barometer survey VI.

b

Russian longitudinal monitoring study.

c

Multinational monitoring of trends and determinants in cardiovascular disease.

d

Health, alcohol and psychosocial factors in Eastern Europe.

The correlates of binge or heavy drinking, based on American and Canadian studies, include being male, young (i.e. age 21–25 years), unmarried, lower educational attainment and unemployment (Barnes et al., 1991; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2002; Naimi et al., 2003). In European studies, the correlates are similar except that heavy drinking in men is more prevalent in middle age (30s to 50s) (Bloomfield, 1998; Meyer et al., 2000; Plant and Plant, 2001; Mateos et al., 2002; Schroder et al., 2004). Although the North American and European findings on age at risk differ, similar findings have been reported on the protective effect of parenting status in the US and the Netherlands (Labouvie, 1996; Hajema et al., 1998). Available surveys from the former Soviet Union have consistently found that being male is a risk factor for heavy alcohol use, particularly in the 25–55 age group (Bobak et al., 1999; Cockerham, 2000). None of the studies in the former Soviet Union was conducted in Ukraine where the recent rates of smoking and illicit substance abuse, particularly in the Southeast region, are among the highest in the former Soviet republics (Dehne et al., 2000; Gilmore et al., 2001; Poznyak et al., 2002).

Our study is the first epidemiologic study of alcohol use in Ukraine to be based on a national probability sample. Consistent with the mandate of the World Health Organization (WHO) WMH Consortium, the main interview tool was the WMH-composite international diagnostic interview (WMH-CIDI). This paper focuses on heavy alcohol use determined from questions on frequency of drinking days and the amount typically consumed. We focused on heavy alcohol use, rather than alcoholism per se, for two reasons. First, our goal was to compare the rates of heavy alcohol use in Ukraine with rates reported for other countries in the former Soviet Union. Second, heavy use is widespread in the former Soviet countries and has been linked to illness and premature death. As such, its public health significance extends beyond that of alcohol disorders in the stricter sense. In this paper, the prevalence and correlates of heavy alcohol use are presented separately for men and women.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Sample and procedures

In 2002, we conducted a national survey of mental illness, substance disorders and health in Ukraine (Bromet et al., 2004) as part of the WMH initiative (The WHO World Mental Health Survey Consortium, 2004). Ukraine (population ∼48 million) is the second largest country in Eastern Europe (after Russia). Seventy-five percent of the population is ethnic Ukrainian, and 22% is Russian.

The Ukraine-WMH survey is based on a nationally representative sample of residents aged 18 and older from the country's 24 oblasts (counties) and the autonomous republic of Crimea. The sampling design had four stages: In the first stage, 170 primary sampling units (PSUs) were selected from the cities, towns and villages with probability proportional to size. The PSUs were drawn such that each oblast (county), and the urban and rural populations in each oblast, were represented proportionally. Second, within the PSUs, postal districts were randomly selected. Third, within each postal district, streets were randomly selected; then buildings within streets; and then, apartments within buildings. Fourth, people 18 years and older were randomly selected within apartments. The response rate was 78.3%. Study participants, compared with those who were unlocated or refusers, tended to be female (61.2% vs 49.5%) and older (48.3 vs 42.9 years).

Face-to-face interviews were carried out with 4725 respondents by the professional interview field staff of the Kiev International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) in collaboration with the Ukrainian Psychiatric Association (UPA). The paper-pencil version of the WMH-CIDI, a fully structured, modularized mental health interview schedule designed for lay interviewers, was administered. The interviewers were trained by a certified CIDI trainer over a period of 1 week.

The recruitment, consent and field procedures were approved by the Human Subjects Committees of University at Stony Brook, KIIS and UPA. Standard forward and back translation procedures were used to translate the instrument into Russian and Ukrainian languages.

Definition of heavy alcohol use

Questions about alcohol consumption in the WMH-CIDI's substance use module addressed the frequency of drinking and the number of grams of liquor (including domestically produced bootleg), wine and beer consumed over the past year on a typical drinking day. Variability was not ascertained. Quantity data were converted to grams of ethanol using suggested equivalents: 0.4 × g of liquor; 0.12 × g of wine; and 0.033 × g of beer (Treml, 1975). For men, heavy alcohol use was defined as consuming ≥80 g of ethanol in a typical drinking day) or consuming either ≥60 g 3–4 days/week or ≥40 g nearly every day. In order to adjust for gender differences in metabolism and body weight (Wechsler and Nelson, 2001), the dose criteria was reduced by 25% for women. Thus, for women, heavy alcohol use was defined as at least monthly consumption of ≥60 g of ethanol in a typical drinking day or consuming either ≥45 g 3–4 days/week or ≥30 g nearly every day. Non-heavy users included ‘lifetime’ abstainers (Table 2).

Table 2.

Comparison of heavy alcohol users and non-heavy users on pattern of drinking and selected validation criteria

 Malesa
 
  Femalesb
 
  
Pattern of drinking
 
Heavy alcohol users
 
Non-heavy users
 

 
Heavy alcohol users
 
Non-heavy users
 

 
Modal frequency 1–2 days/week 1–3 days/month – 1–3 days/month 1–3 days/month – 
Median ethanol consumed on typical drinking day (g) 120.0 40.0 – 80.0 24.0 – 
Inter-quartile range (g) for consumption on a typical drinking day 77.0 36.5 – 32.0 23.5 – 
 Malesa
 
  Femalesb
 
  
Pattern of drinking
 
Heavy alcohol users
 
Non-heavy users
 

 
Heavy alcohol users
 
Non-heavy users
 

 
Modal frequency 1–2 days/week 1–3 days/month – 1–3 days/month 1–3 days/month – 
Median ethanol consumed on typical drinking day (g) 120.0 40.0 – 80.0 24.0 – 
Inter-quartile range (g) for consumption on a typical drinking day 77.0 36.5 – 32.0 23.5 – 

 
%
 
%
 
χ2
 
%
 
%
 
χ2
 
Convergent validity       
    Lifetime alcoholismc 43.6 15.9 71.5** 16.6 1.6 30.2** 
    Past-year alcoholismc 23.1 4.3 61.7** 11.2 0.3 22.9** 
Childhood risk factors       
    Drinking < age 18 71.8 61.7 13.8** 64.8 37.8 54.7** 
    Childhood conduct disorder symptoms 37.3 27.7 8.6* 21.6 9.2 12.3* 
Behavioral correlates       
    Lifetime aggression 53.8 35.6 40.7** 48.3 24.1 28.9** 
    Current-smoker 71.9 48.9 95.0** 32.6 9.9 33.8** 

 
%
 
%
 
χ2
 
%
 
%
 
χ2
 
Convergent validity       
    Lifetime alcoholismc 43.6 15.9 71.5** 16.6 1.6 30.2** 
    Past-year alcoholismc 23.1 4.3 61.7** 11.2 0.3 22.9** 
Childhood risk factors       
    Drinking < age 18 71.8 61.7 13.8** 64.8 37.8 54.7** 
    Childhood conduct disorder symptoms 37.3 27.7 8.6* 21.6 9.2 12.3* 
Behavioral correlates       
    Lifetime aggression 53.8 35.6 40.7** 48.3 24.1 28.9** 
    Current-smoker 71.9 48.9 95.0** 32.6 9.9 33.8** 
a

For heavy alcohol users, n = 810. For non-heavy users (because of the structure of the WMH-CIDI), n = 678 for pattern of drinking variables and 1283 for validation criteria variables.

b

For heavy alcohol users, n = 219. For non-heavy users, n = 610 for pattern of drinking variables and 2359 for validation criteria variables.

c

DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse or alcohol dependence.

*

P < 0.01;

**

P < 0.001.

Demographic and geographic risk factors

Nine socio-demographic variables from the WMH-CIDI were examined: age (categorized as 18–25, 26–34, 35–54, ≥55 years); region (West, North-central including Kiev, Southeast); urbanicity (rural, semi-urban with towns of <200 000 people, urban with cities having >200 000 people); education [primary, secondary, specialized secondary, higher (Shkolnikov et al., 1998)]; financial status (a Ukrainian variable classified as ‘very inadequate’ if there was not enough money for food; ‘inadequate’ if not enough money for clothing; ‘adequate’ if enough money for durables); employment status [out of the labor force (79.0% retired, 9.2% homemakers, 8.5% students and 3.3% disabled), unemployed, employed]; marital status (never married, married before, currently married) and parental status (parent of a child who is under the age of 18 and living at home vs others).

Data analysis

Comparison of the unweighted distribution of the sample with the 2001 population census of Ukraine showed that the sample over-represented women, people >55 years of age, and those living in semi-urban settings. These biases were corrected by weighting the sample to the approximate gender, age, urbanicity and regional distributions of the 2001 census. Analyses were conducted using SUDAAN (2003). All analyses were conducted separately for men and women. Logistic regression was used to explore the relationships of the risk factors to heavy alcohol use. Tests for trend (Wald F statistic with 1 degree of freedom for the numerator) were performed for age group, urbanicity, education and financial status. We first examined each risk factor separately, and then did a multivariate analysis, where age was kept in the model irrespective of significance, while other risk factors were eliminated in a stepwise fashion in order of least significance (modified backwards elimination). The explanatory power of the model was calculated as:  

\[\frac{{-}2\ \mathrm{log}\ L\ \left(\mathrm{intercept\ only\ model}\right)\ {-}\ 2\ \mathrm{log}\ L\ \left(\mathrm{model\ of\ interest}\right)}{{-}2\ \mathrm{log}\ L\ \left(\mathrm{intercept\ only\ model}\right)}\]
Lastly, we summed the risk factors that were significant in the multivariate model to examine its relationship to heavy alcohol use. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

Demographic characteristics are presented in Table 3. The sample contained relatively more women than men, particularly those ≥55 years. There was also a high rate of poverty, with approximately three-quarters of respondents unable to meet basic needs and only 50% employed.

Table 3.

Weighted frequencies of demographic and geographic risk factors

 PopulationaTotal
 
 Males
 
 Females
 
 
Risk factors
 

 
n
 
%
 
n
 
%
 
n
 
%
 
Genderb        
    Male 45.0 2125 45.0 – – – – 
    Female 55.0 2600 55.0 –    
Ageb(years)        
    18–25 15.1 715 15.1 373 17.5 343 13.2 
    26–34 15.5 714 15.1 354 16.7 360 13.8 
    35–54 36.6 1759 37.2 831 39.1 928 35.7 
    55+ 32.7 1537 32.5 568 26.7 969 37.3 
Regionc        
    West 24.6 1168 24.7 518 24.4 650 25.0 
    North-central 33.2 1574 33.3 694 32.6 880 33.9 
    Southeast 42.2 1983 42.0 914 43.0 1069 41.1 
Urbanicityc        
    Rural 32.2 1521 32.2 686 32.3 834 32.1 
    Semi-urban 32.7 1649 34.9 752 35.4 897 34.5 
    Urban 35.1 1555 32.9 687 32.3 868 33.4 
Educationc        
    Primary 6.6 461 9.8 131 6.1 331 12.7 
    Secondary 43.1 2179 46.1 1081 50.9 1098 42.2 
    Specialized secondary 32.0 1281 27.1 553 26.1 728 28.0 
    Higher 18.2 802 17.0 359 16.9 443 17.1 
Financial statusc        
    Very inadequate 23.9 1436 30.8 493 23.6 943 36.6 
    Inadequate 47.5 2384 51.1 1129 54.0 1255 48.7 
    Adequate 27.6 848 18.2 470 22.4 348 14.7 
Employment statusc        
    Out of the labor force 42.0 1789 37.9 608 28.7 1182 45.5 
    Unemployed 12.6 570 12.1 315 14.8 256 9.8 
    Employed 44.2 2361 50.0 1199 56.5 1162 44.7 
Marital statusc        
    Never married 14.2 728 15.4 450 21.2 278 10.7 
    Married before 25.6 1172 24.8 302 14.2 870 33.5 
    Married 60.1 2825 59.8 1373 64.6 1452 55.8 
Parental status        
    Not parent of child – 3293 69.9 1531 72.4 1762 67.8 
    Parent of child – 1421 30.1 583 27.6 837 32.2 
 PopulationaTotal
 
 Males
 
 Females
 
 
Risk factors
 

 
n
 
%
 
n
 
%
 
n
 
%
 
Genderb        
    Male 45.0 2125 45.0 – – – – 
    Female 55.0 2600 55.0 –    
Ageb(years)        
    18–25 15.1 715 15.1 373 17.5 343 13.2 
    26–34 15.5 714 15.1 354 16.7 360 13.8 
    35–54 36.6 1759 37.2 831 39.1 928 35.7 
    55+ 32.7 1537 32.5 568 26.7 969 37.3 
Regionc        
    West 24.6 1168 24.7 518 24.4 650 25.0 
    North-central 33.2 1574 33.3 694 32.6 880 33.9 
    Southeast 42.2 1983 42.0 914 43.0 1069 41.1 
Urbanicityc        
    Rural 32.2 1521 32.2 686 32.3 834 32.1 
    Semi-urban 32.7 1649 34.9 752 35.4 897 34.5 
    Urban 35.1 1555 32.9 687 32.3 868 33.4 
Educationc        
    Primary 6.6 461 9.8 131 6.1 331 12.7 
    Secondary 43.1 2179 46.1 1081 50.9 1098 42.2 
    Specialized secondary 32.0 1281 27.1 553 26.1 728 28.0 
    Higher 18.2 802 17.0 359 16.9 443 17.1 
Financial statusc        
    Very inadequate 23.9 1436 30.8 493 23.6 943 36.6 
    Inadequate 47.5 2384 51.1 1129 54.0 1255 48.7 
    Adequate 27.6 848 18.2 470 22.4 348 14.7 
Employment statusc        
    Out of the labor force 42.0 1789 37.9 608 28.7 1182 45.5 
    Unemployed 12.6 570 12.1 315 14.8 256 9.8 
    Employed 44.2 2361 50.0 1199 56.5 1162 44.7 
Marital statusc        
    Never married 14.2 728 15.4 450 21.2 278 10.7 
    Married before 25.6 1172 24.8 302 14.2 870 33.5 
    Married 60.1 2825 59.8 1373 64.6 1452 55.8 
Parental status        
    Not parent of child – 3293 69.9 1531 72.4 1762 67.8 
    Parent of child – 1421 30.1 583 27.6 837 32.2 
a

Total population = 48 457 100 based on 2001 Ukrainian census.

b

From 2001 Ukrainian census.

c

From KIIS.

Prevalence

Patterns of use for heavy and non-heavy alcohol users are presented in Table 2. We found that 1.0% of men and 4.7% of women were lifetime abstainers. To examine convergent validity, we compared heavy users with non-heavy users on lifetime and past-year DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence (Table 2). As expected, heavy alcohol users had significantly higher rates. We next approached validity by testing the differences between the groups on established childhood risk factors and behavioral correlates (Pulkkinen and Pitkanen, 1994; Dewit et al., 2000; Wells et al., 2000; Warner and White, 2003) assessed in the WMH-CIDI. As Table 2 shows, the measure of heavy alcohol use distinguished between groups on all measures.

The 12-month prevalence of heavy alcohol use was 38.7% for men and 8.5% for women (OR = 6.8: 95% CI = 5.7–8.2, p < 0.001). The overall rate was 22.0%. Figure 1 shows that the rates were the highest in men aged 26–34 years (49.7%) and 35–54 years (45.5%). In women, the highest rate occurred in the 18–25 age group (16.2%).

Fig. 1.

Relationship of gender and age to heavy alcohol use in Ukraine.

Fig. 1.

Relationship of gender and age to heavy alcohol use in Ukraine.

Ninety-two percent of the male heavy alcohol users consumed ≥80 g ethanol in 1 day at least once per month in the past year. In contrast, 50.4% of female heavy alcohol users consumed this amount at least monthly.

Risk factors

The associations of the socio-demographic variables with heavy alcohol use are presented in Tables 4 and 5. The univariate ORs for men (Table 4) showed that the odds of heavy alcohol use were significantly higher in those who were in the age group of 26–34 years and 35–54 years, lived in the Southeast (compared with the West), had a secondary education (i.e. high school), were employed or unemployed (vs out of the labor force), and were the parent of a child under the age of 18 living at home. The final multivariate model showed that heavy alcohol users were more likely to be in the age group of 26–54 years, living in the Southeast, employed or unemployed (vs out of the labor force) and the father of a young child, but the explanatory power was 5.2%.

Table 4.

Prevalence of heavy alcohol use by demographic and geographic risk factors in men: weighted proportions

  Unadjusted
 
  Adjusteda
 
  
Risk factors
 
%
 
OR
 
95% CI
 
P
 
OR
 
95% CI
 
P
 
Age (years)    <0.001   <0.05 
    18–25 32.7 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    26–34 49.7 2.0 (1.4–2.9)***  1.7 (1.1–2.4)**  
    35–54 45.5 1.7 (1.3–2.2)***  1.4 (1.1–2.0)*  
    55+ 25.8 0.7 (0.5–1.0)*  1.0 (0.7–1.5)  
    F for trend  9.3**   0.3   
Region    <0.05   <0.05 
    West 36.0 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    North-central 34.5 0.9 (0.7–1.3)  1.0 (0.7–1.4)  
    Southeast 43.5 1.4 (1.0–1.8)*  1.4 (1.1–1.9)*  
Urbanicity    n.s. a   
    Rural 41.4 1.0 –     
    Semi-urban 39.7 0.9 (0.6–1.4)     
    Urban 34.9 0.8 (0.5–1.2)     
    F for trend  1.8      
Education    <0.01   <0.05 
    Primary 27.5 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    Secondary 43.3 2.0 (1.2–3.3)**  1.0 (0.6–1.7)  
    Specialized secondary 37.9 1.6 (1.0–2.7)  0.8 (0.4–1.3)  
    Higher 30.4 1.2 (0.7–1.2)  0.6 (0.3–1.1)  
    F for trend  4.1   9.9**   
Financial status    n.s. a   
    Very inadequate 40.4 1.0 –     
    Inadequate 39.4 1.0 (0.8–1.2)     
    Adequate 36.9 0.9 (0.6–1.2)     
    F for trend  0.9      
Employment status    <0.001   <0.05 
    Out of the labor force 25.2 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    Unemployed 47.0 2.6 (1.9–3.7)***  1.9 (1.2–3.1)**  
    Employed 46.5 2.3 (1.7–3.1)***  1.7 (1.0–2.7)*  
Marital status    n.s. a   
    Never married 35.6 1.0 –     
    Married before 42.4 1.3 (0.9–2.0)     
    Married 38.9 1.2 (0.9–1.6)     
Parental status    <0.001   <0.05 
    Not parent of a child 33.8 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    Parent of child 50.7 2.0 (1.5–2.6)***  1.5 (1.1–2.0)*  
  Unadjusted
 
  Adjusteda
 
  
Risk factors
 
%
 
OR
 
95% CI
 
P
 
OR
 
95% CI
 
P
 
Age (years)    <0.001   <0.05 
    18–25 32.7 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    26–34 49.7 2.0 (1.4–2.9)***  1.7 (1.1–2.4)**  
    35–54 45.5 1.7 (1.3–2.2)***  1.4 (1.1–2.0)*  
    55+ 25.8 0.7 (0.5–1.0)*  1.0 (0.7–1.5)  
    F for trend  9.3**   0.3   
Region    <0.05   <0.05 
    West 36.0 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    North-central 34.5 0.9 (0.7–1.3)  1.0 (0.7–1.4)  
    Southeast 43.5 1.4 (1.0–1.8)*  1.4 (1.1–1.9)*  
Urbanicity    n.s. a   
    Rural 41.4 1.0 –     
    Semi-urban 39.7 0.9 (0.6–1.4)     
    Urban 34.9 0.8 (0.5–1.2)     
    F for trend  1.8      
Education    <0.01   <0.05 
    Primary 27.5 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    Secondary 43.3 2.0 (1.2–3.3)**  1.0 (0.6–1.7)  
    Specialized secondary 37.9 1.6 (1.0–2.7)  0.8 (0.4–1.3)  
    Higher 30.4 1.2 (0.7–1.2)  0.6 (0.3–1.1)  
    F for trend  4.1   9.9**   
Financial status    n.s. a   
    Very inadequate 40.4 1.0 –     
    Inadequate 39.4 1.0 (0.8–1.2)     
    Adequate 36.9 0.9 (0.6–1.2)     
    F for trend  0.9      
Employment status    <0.001   <0.05 
    Out of the labor force 25.2 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    Unemployed 47.0 2.6 (1.9–3.7)***  1.9 (1.2–3.1)**  
    Employed 46.5 2.3 (1.7–3.1)***  1.7 (1.0–2.7)*  
Marital status    n.s. a   
    Never married 35.6 1.0 –     
    Married before 42.4 1.3 (0.9–2.0)     
    Married 38.9 1.2 (0.9–1.6)     
Parental status    <0.001   <0.05 
    Not parent of a child 33.8 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    Parent of child 50.7 2.0 (1.5–2.6)***  1.5 (1.1–2.0)*  
a

Non-significant risk factors were eliminated from the adjusted model in order of least significance.

*

P < 0.05;

**

P < 0.01;

***

P < 0.001.

Table 5.

Prevalence of heavy alcohol use by demographic and geographic risk factors in women: weighted proportions

  Unadjusted
 
  Adjusteda
 
  
Risk factors
 
%
 
OR
 
95% CI
 
P
 
OR
 
95% CI
 
P
 
Age (years)    <0.001   <0.001 
    18–25 16.2 1.0   1.0 –  
    26–34 12.5 0.7 (0.5–1.2)  0.7 (0.4–1.1)  
    35–54 10.9 0.6 (0.5–0.9)**  0.6 (0.4–0.8)***  
    55+ 1.9 0.1 (0.1–0.2)***  0.1 (0.1–0.2)***  
    F for trend  158.1***   70.8***   
Region    < 0.05   <0.05 
    West 5.6 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    North-central 7.3 1.3 (0.9–2.1)  1.5 (1.0–2.2)  
    Southeast 11.2 2.2 (1.3–3.6)**  2.2 (1.4–3.5)**  
Urbanicity    n.s.  a  
    Rural 6.4  1.0 –    
    Semi-urban 10.4 1.7 (1.0–2.8)*     
    Urban 8.5 1.4 (0.9–2.1)     
    F for trend  1.9      
Education    <0.01 a   
    Primary 2.3 1.0 –     
    Secondary 9.9 4.7 (2.2–9.8)***     
    Specialized secondary 10.2 4.8 (2.1–11.0)***     
    Higher 6.9 3.1 (1.5–6.4)**     
    F for trend  3.0      
Financial status    <0.001 a   
    Very inadequate 6.9 1.0 –     
    Inadequate 8.2 1.2 (0.8–1.7)     
    Adequate 13.6 2.1 (1.5–3.0)***     
    F for trend  13.6***      
Employment status    <0.001   <0.05 
    Out of the labor force 3.7 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    Unemployed 16.3 5.1 (3.1–8.3)***  2.2 (1.2–3.9)*  
    Employed 11.6 3.5 (2.5–4.7)***  1.6 (1.0–2.5)*  
Marital status    <0.05 a   
    Never married 13.1 1.0 –     
    Married before 7.2 0.5 (0.3–0.8)**     
    Married 8.4 0.6 (0.4–0.9)*     
Parental status    <0.001 a   
    Not parent of a child 6.5 1.0 –     
    Parent of child 12.6 2.1 (1.5–2.9)***     
  Unadjusted
 
  Adjusteda
 
  
Risk factors
 
%
 
OR
 
95% CI
 
P
 
OR
 
95% CI
 
P
 
Age (years)    <0.001   <0.001 
    18–25 16.2 1.0   1.0 –  
    26–34 12.5 0.7 (0.5–1.2)  0.7 (0.4–1.1)  
    35–54 10.9 0.6 (0.5–0.9)**  0.6 (0.4–0.8)***  
    55+ 1.9 0.1 (0.1–0.2)***  0.1 (0.1–0.2)***  
    F for trend  158.1***   70.8***   
Region    < 0.05   <0.05 
    West 5.6 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    North-central 7.3 1.3 (0.9–2.1)  1.5 (1.0–2.2)  
    Southeast 11.2 2.2 (1.3–3.6)**  2.2 (1.4–3.5)**  
Urbanicity    n.s.  a  
    Rural 6.4  1.0 –    
    Semi-urban 10.4 1.7 (1.0–2.8)*     
    Urban 8.5 1.4 (0.9–2.1)     
    F for trend  1.9      
Education    <0.01 a   
    Primary 2.3 1.0 –     
    Secondary 9.9 4.7 (2.2–9.8)***     
    Specialized secondary 10.2 4.8 (2.1–11.0)***     
    Higher 6.9 3.1 (1.5–6.4)**     
    F for trend  3.0      
Financial status    <0.001 a   
    Very inadequate 6.9 1.0 –     
    Inadequate 8.2 1.2 (0.8–1.7)     
    Adequate 13.6 2.1 (1.5–3.0)***     
    F for trend  13.6***      
Employment status    <0.001   <0.05 
    Out of the labor force 3.7 1.0 –  1.0 –  
    Unemployed 16.3 5.1 (3.1–8.3)***  2.2 (1.2–3.9)*  
    Employed 11.6 3.5 (2.5–4.7)***  1.6 (1.0–2.5)*  
Marital status    <0.05 a   
    Never married 13.1 1.0 –     
    Married before 7.2 0.5 (0.3–0.8)**     
    Married 8.4 0.6 (0.4–0.9)*     
Parental status    <0.001 a   
    Not parent of a child 6.5 1.0 –     
    Parent of child 12.6 2.1 (1.5–2.9)***     
a

Non-significant risk factors were eliminated from the adjusted model in order of least significance.

*

P < 0.05;

**

P < 0.01;

***

P < 0.001.

In women (Table 5), the odds of heavy alcohol use were higher for those who were 18–25 years, lived in the Southeast, lived in a semi-urban settings, had more education, had adequate financial status, were employed or unemployed (vs out of the labor force), had never been married and had a child under the age of 18 living at home. The multivariate analysis had an explanatory power of 9.2%, and showed that female heavy alcohol users were more likely to be young, living in the Southeast and employed or unemployed (vs out of the labor force).

Figure 2 shows the significant linear trends for the prevalence of heavy alcohol use with increasing number of risk factors.

Fig. 2.

Relationship of number of risk factors to heavy alcohol use (Tests for linear trend: men (F = 73.6, P < 0.001); women (F = 69.3, P < 0.001).

Fig. 2.

Relationship of number of risk factors to heavy alcohol use (Tests for linear trend: men (F = 73.6, P < 0.001); women (F = 69.3, P < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

The Ukraine-WMH survey is the first large population-based study of alcohol use in Ukraine. Our survey found that the rate of heavy use was 22.0%. More than 4 out of 5 heavy users consumed >80 g/typical day at least monthly. In both men and women, living in the Southeast and being employed or unemployed (vs out of the labor force) were significant risk factors. Among men, the odds of heavy alcohol use were also increased for those 26–54 years of age, with a high school education and with young children at home. In women, the unique risk factor was being in the 18–25 years age group.

Our national rates of heavy alcohol use (38.7% for men; 8.5% for women) were comparable with the estimates of monthly binge drinking in Russia reported by Bobak et al. (1999). However, there were substantial regional variations within Ukraine, with the highest rate in the Southeast region, which is heavily populated by Russian migrants of the Soviet era. It is interesting to note that two of the three regional surveys in Russia also found particularly high rates (51–82% for men; 5–11% for women) (Pakriev et al., 1998; Malyutina et al., 2001). Clearly, the issue of regional variations is important for targeted public health planning, and more focused research using comparable tools and sampling techniques is needed.

A comparison of our findings with surveys elsewhere suggests that there are differences in risk factors between countries on either side of the Atlantic; i.e. the positive association of male heavy alcohol use with middle age is consistent with surveys in Russia, the Baltics and Bulgaria (Balabanova and McKee, 1999; Bobak et al., 1999; Cockerham, 2000; McKee et al., 2000), as well as Britain, Germany and Spain (Bloomfield, 1998; Meyer et al., 2000; Mateos et al., 2002; Schroder et al., 2004). However, the findings differ from North American surveys in which male heavy drinking declines after age 25 (Layne and Whitehead, 1985; Bachman et al., 2002; Naimi et al., 2003). Our finding that marital status is not significantly related to heavy consumption in men is consistent with those of other surveys in the former Eastern bloc (Balabanova and McKee, 1999; Bobak et al., 1999; Cockerham, 2000; Malyutina et al., 2004), but not with findings from Western epidemiologic research. Most American and European surveys find adult family responsibilities (e.g. being or becoming married or a father) to be negatively correlated with heavy drinking in men (Power and Estaugh, 1990; Miller-Tutzauer et al., 1991; Temple et al., 1991; Kunz and Graham, 1996; Gotham et al., 1997; Hajema and Knibber, 1998; Vik et al., 2003). Not only did our study find marriage unrelated to heavy use, but fatherhood was positively related.

Our study focuses on the prevalence and demographic correlates of heavy alcohol use. Future population-based case–control and longitudinal research is needed to evaluate other risk factors, such as genetic (Wang et al., 2004), environmental (Velleman, 1992; Farrell et al. 1995), alcohol-specific (e.g. drinking norms, peer drinking) (Choquette et al., 1985; Chen et al., 1994; Lintonen and Konu, 2004), and factors associated with historical and concurrent political and economic upheavals in Ukraine. Research focused on economic risk factors is particularly important. To the best of our knowledge, the suggested link between economic stress and heavy drinking in the former Soviet Union (Pridemore, 2002; Walberg et al., 1998) has not been tested with individual-level data.

Further research is also needed to fully understand the public health significance of our findings. The high prevalence of heavy alcohol use, particularly by Ukrainian men, may mean that associated costs and problems are similarly prevalent. On the other hand, its ubiquity may be a sign that heavy drinking is largely normative, and thus, non-pathological. Indeed, despite high rates of alcoholism in Ukraine (Bromet et al., 2004, World Mental Health Consortium, 2004), only 23.1% of the male and 11.2% of the female heavy users met the diagnostic criteria for an alcohol disorder. Given Ukraine's declining population, a more pressing issue is the impact of heavy alcohol use on mortality. A recent longitudinal study by Malyutina et al. (2002) found that middle-aged, Russian men who binged on an at least monthly basis were at a higher risk for death by injury and that more intense drinkers were at risk for cardiovascular-related death. Future prospectively designed epidemiologic research is needed, which incorporates direct measurement of cardiovascular functioning, and begins with a cohort of men before the age at risk for heavy drinking. The impact of heavy alcohol use on the economy is obviously important to Ukraine during its transitional period. We found that nearly one of two employed men and one of ten employed women are heavy users. Thus, future studies should examine the effect of heavy use on occupational functioning (e.g. productivity, days missed at work).

Past prevention efforts in the former Soviet Union have been criticized for being indiscriminate and overly inclusive (Korolenko et al., 1994). The results of our multivariate analyses indicated that heavy alcohol use is demographically widespread, but that groups with a higher concentration of heavy users can be identified when risk factors are clustered. Almost two-thirds of male heavy alcohol users in our study had three or more risk factors. One preliminary study in Russia (Lukomskaia, 1997) suggests that primary care may serve as an appropriate venue for screening and intervening with patients who have high-risk profiles (e.g. unemployed father with a high school education). Moreover, since half of the heavy alcohol users in Ukraine are employed, work settings provide obvious places to locate intervention programs. Alcohol testing is fairly common in the public and private sectors (Rice and Repo, 2000), but nearly half of Ukraine's oblasts (counties) are without state-funded outpatient programs for prevention or treatment of cases identified in the workplace (Ministry of Health of Ukraine, 2004).

Our study has a number of strengths, including a large national probability sample that reflects the economic conditions of Ukraine (Rhodes et al., 1999; Barnett et al., 2000), the structured assessment, and the use of a valid index for heavy alcohol use. Nevertheless, there are a number of limitations. First, the data are based on self-report, and past studies in former Soviet Union countries have shown that self-reported data underestimates drinking compared with biomedical and sales data (Laatikainen et al., 2002; Nemtsov, 2003). Second, 33 potential respondents could not be interviewed because they were never sober when the interviewer tried to approach them. Third, the diagnostic instrument only determined lifetime abstinence, and hence the non-heavy use group included both users and non-users of alcohol in the past year; unfortunately, it is not possible to estimate what effect this has had on the risk factors presented here. Lastly, the sample excluded people in the military or other institutional settings where heavy drinking is a well-known problem. Thus for men, our estimates may be conservative.

CONCLUSIONS

The Ukraine-WMH survey found that 1 out of every 3 men and 1 out of every 12 women consume alcohol heavily. Future analyses should address the social and economic costs of heavy alcohol use in Ukraine. The associations with age, sex, employment, unemployment and region suggest that interventions should be developed to target high-risk pockets of the population.

This study was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health (MH61905, Evelyn Bromet PI). The survey was conducted as part of the WHO World Mental Health Survey consortium directed by Ronald C. Kessler (Harvard University) and T. Bedirhan Ustun (World Health Organization). The authors thank Volodymyr Paniotto, Valeriy Khmelko and Victoria Zakhozha (Kiev International Institute of Sociology) and Julia Pievskaya (Ukrainian Psychiatric Association) for their invaluable assistance in conducting the field work; Inna Korchak, Roxalana Mykhaylyk, Margaret Bloom, and Svetlana Stepukhovich for their excellent work in translating the various components of the study; and Ellen Walters for her continuing statistical support. Special thanks go to the interviewers and participants for their dedication and diligence.

REFERENCES

Bachman, J. G., O'Malley, P. M., Schulenberg, J. E. et al. (
2002
) The Decline of Substance Use in Young Adulthood. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mahwah, New Jersey.
Balabanova, D. and McKee, M. (
1999
) Patterns of alcohol consumption in Bulgaria.
Alcohol and Alcoholism
 
34
,
622
–628.
Barnes, G. M., Welte, J. W. and Dintcheff, B. (
1991
) Drinking among subgroups in the adult population of New York State: a classification analysis using CART.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol
 
52
,
338
–344.
Barnett, T., Whiteside, A., Khodakevich, L. et al. (
2000
) The HIV/AIDS epidemic in Ukraine: its potential social and economic impact.
Social Science and Medicine
 
51
,
1387
–1403.
Bloomfield, K. (
1998
) West German drinking patterns in 1984 and 1990.
European Addiction Research
 
4
,
163
–171.
Bobak, M., McKee, M., Rose, R. et al. (
1999
) Alcohol consumption in a national sample of the Russian population.
Addiction
 
94
,
857
–866.
Bobak, M., Room, R., Pikhart, H. (
2004
) Contribution of drinking patterns to differences in rates of alcohol related problems between three urban populations.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
 
58
,
238
–242.
Bromet, E. J., Gluzman, S., Paniotto, V., Webb, C. P. M., Tintle, N. L., Zakhozha, V., Havenaar, J. M., Gutkovich, Z., and Schwartz, J. E. (in press) Epidemiology of psychiatric disorders in Ukraine: findings from the Ukraine Mental Health survey. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology.
Carlson, P. (
2001
) Risk behaviors and self rated health in Russia: 1998.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
 
55
,
806
–817.
Chen, Meng-Jinn, Grube, J. W. and Madden, P. A. (
1994
) Alcohol expectancies and adolescent drinking: differential prediction of frequency, quantity, and intoxication.
Addictive Behaviors
 
19
,
521
–529.
Chenet, L., McKee, M., Leon, D. et al. (
1998
) Alcohol and cardiovascular mortality in Moscow: new evidence of a causal association.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
 
52
,
772
–774.
Chenet, L., Britton, A., Kalediene, R. et al. (
2001
) Daily variations in deaths in Lithuania: the possible contribution of binge drinking.
International Journal of Epidemiology
 
30
,
743
–748.
Choquette, K. A., Hesselbrock, M. N. and Babor, T. F. (
1985
) Discriminative control of alcoholics' drinking by drinking situation.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol
 
46
,
412
–417.
Cockerham, W. C. (
2000
) Health lifestyles in Russia.
Social Science and Medicine
 
51
,
1313
–1324.
Dehne, K. L., Pokrovskiy, V., Kobyshcha, Y. et al. (
2000
) Update on the epidemics of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections in the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union.
AIDS
 
14
,
S75
–S84.
DeWit, D. J., Adlaf, E. M., Offord, D. R. et al. (
2000
) Age at first alcohol use: a risk factor for the development of alcohol disorders.
American Journal of Psychiatry
 
157
,
745
–750.
Eurostat (
2002
) Statistics in focus: First results of the demographic data collection for 2001 in Europe. Eurostat, Luxembourg.
Farrell, M., Barnes, G. and Banerjee, S. (
1995
) Family cohesion as a buffer against effects of problem-drinking fathers on psychological distress, deviant behavior, and heavy drinking in adolescents.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior
 
36
,
377
–385.
Gilmore, A. B., McKee, M., Telishevska, M. et al. (
2001
) Epidemiology of smoking in Ukraine, 2000.
Preventive Medicine
 
33
,
453
–461.
Gotham, H. J., Sher, K. J. and Wood, P. K. (
1997
) Predicting stability and change in frequency of intoxication from the college years to beyond: individual-difference and role transition variables.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
 
106
,
619
–629.
Hajema, K. and Knibber, R. A. (
1998
) Changes in social roles as predictors of changes in drinking behaviour.
Addiction
 
93
,
1717
–1727.
Korolenko, C., Minevich, V. and Segal, B. (
1994
) The politicization of alcohol in the USSR and its impact on the study and treatment of alcoholism.
International Journal of the Addictions
 
29
,
1269
–1285.
Kunz, J. L. and Graham, K. (
1996
) Life course changes in alcohol consumption in leisure activities of men and women.
Journal of Drug Issues
 
26
,
805
–829.
Kuzio, T. (
2003
) Census: Ukraine more Ukrainian.
Russia and Eurasia Review
 
4
,
7
–10.
Labouvie, E. (
1996
) Maturing out of substance use: selection and self-correction.
Journal of Drug Issues
 
26
,
457
–476.
Laatikainen, T., Alho, H., Vartiainen, E. et al. (
2002
) Self-reported alcohol consumption and association to carbohydrate-deficient transferrin and gamma-glutamyltransferase in a random sample of the general population in the republic of Karelia, Russia and North Karelia, Finland.
Alcohol and Alcoholism
 
37
,
282
–288.
Layne, N. and Whitehead, P. C. (
1985
) Employment, marital status and alcohol consumption of young Canadian men.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol
 
46
,
538
–540.
Lintonen, T. P. and Konu, A. I. (
2004
) The misperceived social norm of drunkenness among early adolescents in Finland.
Health Education Research: Theory and Practice
 
19
,
64
–70.
Lukomskaia, M. (
1997
) Alcoholism in Russia: Psychosocial and Clinical Research. Humanitarian Publishers AGI, Moscow, Russia.
Mateos, R., Paramo, M. and Carrera, I. et al. (
2002
) Alcohol consumption in a southern European region (Galicia, Spain).
Substance Use and Misuse
 
37
,
1957
–1976.
Malyutina, S., Bobak, M., Kurilovitch, S. et al. (
2001
) Alcohol consumption and binge drinking in Novosibirsk, Russia, 1985–1995.
Addiction
 
96
,
987
–995.
Malyutina, S., Bobak, M., Kurilovitch, S. et al. (
2002
) Relation between heavy and binge drinking and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in Novosibirsk, Russia: a prospective cohort study.
Lancet
 
360
,
1448
–1454.
Malyutina, S., Bobak, M., Kurilovitch, S. et al. (
2004
) Trends in alcohol intake by education and marital status in urban population in Russia between the mid 1980s and the mid 1990s.
Alcohol and Alcoholism
 
39
,
64
–69.
Ministry of Health of Ukraine. (
2004
) Indicators of Substance Use Disorders Incidence and Prevalence and Activities of Substance Abuse Treatment Facilities in Ukraine in 2003. Center of Medical Statistics of the Ministry of Health of Ukraine. Kiev, Ukraine.
McKee, M., Pomerleau, J., Robertson, A. et al. (
2000
) Alcohol consumption in the Baltic Republics.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
 
54
,
361
–366.
Meyer, C., Rumpf, H. J., Hapke, U. et al. (
2000
) Prevalence of alcohol consumption, abuse and dependence in a country with high per capita consumption: findings from the German TACOS study.
Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology
 
35
,
539
–547.
Miller-Tutzauer, C., Leonard, K. E. and Windle, M. (
1991
) Marriage and alcohol use: a longitudinal study of ‘maturing out’.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol
 
52
,
434
–440.
Naimi, T. S., Brewer, R. D., Mokdad, A. et al. (
2003
) Binge drinking among US adults.
Journal of the American Medical Association
 
289
,
70
–75.
Nemtsov, A. V. (
1998
) Alcohol-related harm and alcohol consumption in Moscow before, during and after a major anti-alcohol campaign.
Addiction
 
93
,
1501
–1510.
Nemtsov, A. V. (
1999
) Alcohol-related human losses in Russia in the 1980s and 1990s.
Addiction
 
97
,
1413
–1425.
Nemtsov, A. (
2003
) Alcohol consumption level in Russia: a viewpoint on monitoring health conditions in the Russian federation (RLMS).
Addiction
 
98
,
369
–370.
Pakriev, S., Vasar, V., Aluoja, A. et al. (
1998
) Prevalence of ICD-10 harmful use of alcohol and alcohol dependence among the rural population in Udmurtia.
Alcohol and Alcoholism
 
33
,
255
–264.
Plant, M. and Plant, M. (
2001
) Heavy drinking by young British women gives cause for concern.
British Medical Journal
 
323
,
1183
.
Power, C. and Estaugh, V. (
1990
) The role of family formation and dissolution in shaping drinking behaviour in early adulthood.
British Journal of Addiction
 
85
,
521
–530.
Poznyak, V., Pelipas, V., Vievski, A. et al. (
2002
) Illicit drug use and its health consequences in Belarus, Russian Federation and Ukraine: impact of transition.
European Addiction Research
 
8
,
184
–189.
Pridemore, W. A. (
2002
) Vodka and violence: alcohol consumption and homicide rates in Russia.
American Journal of Public Health
 
92
,
1921
–1930.
Pulkkinen, L. and Pitkanen, T. (
1994
) A prospective study of the precursors to problem drinking in young adulthood.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol
 
55
,
578
–587.
Rhodes, T., Ball, A., Stimson, G. V. et al. (
1999
) HIV infection associated with drug injecting in the newly independent states, eastern Europe: the social and economic context of epidemics.
Addiction
 
94
,
1323
–1336.
Rice, A. and Repo, P. (
2000
) Health and Safety at the Workplace—Trade Union Experiences in Central and Eastern Europe. International Labor Office, Budapest, Hungary.
Schroder, H., Marrugat, J., Covas, M. et al. (
2004
) Population dietary habits and physical activity modification with age.
European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
 
58
,
302
–311.
Shkolnikov, V. M., Leon, D. A., Adamets, S. et al. (
1998
) Educational level and adult mortality in Russia: an analysis of routine data 1979 to 1994.
Social Science & Medicine
 
47
,
357
–369.
Stack, S. and Wasserman, I. (
1993
) Marital status, alcohol consumption, and suicide: an analysis of national data.
Journal of Marriage and the Family
 
55
,
1018
–1024.
Steshenko, V. (ed.) (
1997
) The Health of Women and Children in Ukraine. United Nations Development Program, Kiev, Ukraine.
SUDAAN Version 8.0.2 (
2003
) Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Temple, M. T., Fillmore, K. M., Hartka, E. et al. (
1991
) A meta-analysis of change in marital and employment status as predictors of alcohol consumption on a typical occasion.
British Journal of Addiction
 
86
,
1269
–1281.
Treml, V. G. (
1975
) Production and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the USSR. A statistical study.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol
 
36
,
285
–320.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office of Applied Studies (
2002
) National Household Survey on Drug Abuse: 2001. US DHHS, Washington, DC.
Velleman, R. (
1992
) Intergenerational effects—A review of environmentally oriented studies concerning the relationship between parental alcohol problems and family disharmony in the genesis of alcohol and other problems. I: the intergenerational effects of alcohol problems.
The International Journal of the Addictions
 
27
,
253
–280.
Vik, P. W., Cellucci, T. and Ivers, H. (
2003
) Natural reduction of binge drinking among college students.
Addictive Behaviors
 
28
,
643
–655.
Wang, J. C., Hinrichs, A. L., Stock, H. et al. (
2004
) Evidence of common and specific genetic effects: association of the muscarinic acetycholine receptor MS (CHRM2) gene with alcohol dependence and major depressive syndrome.
Human Molecular Genetics
 
13
,
1903
–1911.
Walberg, P., McKee, M., Shkolnikov, V. et al. (
1998
) Economic change, crime, and mortality crisis in Russia: regional analysis.
British Medical Journal
 
17
,
312
–318.
Warner, L. A. and White, H. R. (
2003
) Longitudinal effects of age at onset and first drinking situations on problem drinking.
Substance Use and Misuse
 
38
,
1983
–2016.
Wechsler, H. and Nelson, T. F. (
2001
) Binge drinking and the American college student: what's five drinks?
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors
 
15
,
287
–291.
Wells, S., Graham, K. and West, P. (
2000
) Alcohol-related aggression in the general population.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol
 
61
,
626
–632.
World Health Organization. (
2003
) The World Health Report 2003: Shaping the Future. World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
WHO World Mental Health Survey Consortium (
2004
) Prevalence, severity, and unmet need for treatment of mental disorders in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys.
Journal of the American Medical Association
 
291
,
2581
–2590.

Author notes

1Ukrainian Psychiatric Association, Kyiv, Ukraine

2Department of Psychiatry, Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands