Premium
Alcohol subjective responses in heavy drinkers: Measuring acute effects in the natural environment versus the controlled laboratory setting
Author(s) -
Fridberg Daniel J.,
Cao Dingcai,
King Andrea C.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
alcoholism: clinical and experimental research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.267
H-Index - 153
eISSN - 1530-0277
pISSN - 0145-6008
DOI - 10.1111/acer.14616
Subject(s) - binge drinking , alcohol , intraclass correlation , psychology , blood alcohol , heavy drinking , alcohol consumption , poison control , medicine , clinical psychology , injury prevention , environmental health , psychometrics , chemistry , biochemistry
Background For decades, laboratory alcohol challenges have been the “gold standard” for measuring individual differences in alcohol's subjective effects. However, these approaches are expensive and labor‐intensive, making them impractical for large‐scale use. This study examined the reliability and validity of a new high‐resolution EMA (HR‐EMA) ambulatory approach to assessing alcohol use and subjective responses in drinkers’ natural environments. Methods Participants were 83 young adult heavy social drinkers (58% male; mean ± SD age = 25.4 ± 2.6 years) who completed up to two smartphone‐based, 3‐h HR‐EMA assessments of alcohol use and related subjective responses in their typical drinking environments. Reported alcohol consumption during the HR‐EMA periods was used to calculate estimated blood alcohol concentration (eBAC). Subjective effects were measured using the Brief Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale (B‐BAES) and Drug Effects Questionnaire (DEQ). All participants also completed identical measures during a separate, 4 to 5‐h laboratory session in which they received a 0.8 g/kg alcohol challenge. Results Most natural environment drinking episodes (87%) met or exceeded the threshold for binge drinking (final mean eBAC = 0.12 g/dl). Associations between reported alcohol use and subjective responses on the B‐BAES and DEQ were strongest earlier in the drinking events, with fair reliability of reported subjective effects across two HR‐EMA episodes (intraclass correlation [ICC] range = 0.46−0.49). There was fair‐to‐good correspondence between HR‐EMA‐ and laboratory‐derived subjective responses (ICC range = 0.49−0.74), even after accounting for differences in alcohol consumption and drinking context. Reported stimulating and rewarding alcohol effects were higher in the ambulatory than laboratory setting, and vice versa for sedating effects. Conclusions This study supports the reliability and validity of smartphone‐based HR‐EMA to measure alcohol use and subjective responses in heavy drinkers’ natural environments. These findings lend support to the use of ambulatory HR‐EMA as a measure of alcohol subjective responses in risky drinkers when a laboratory protocol is not practical, feasible, or safe.