Skip to main content

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

From: Non-response bias and hazardous alcohol use in relation to previous alcohol-related hospitalization: comparing survey responses with population data

  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   
  1. *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.
  2. 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.