INTRODUCTION:

Alcohol consumption contributes to >3million deaths globally every year and over 5% of the global burden of disease and injury, according to the recently issued WHO global status report (GSR)on alcohol and health 2018.It is also a major risk factor for NCDS, including cancers and cardiovascular diseases, and injuries.¹

Globally alcohol consumption is the seventh leading risk factor for premature death and disability. Young adults (n=652) from the 2001 National household survey on drug abuse (19-21 years of age, 51% female, 66% white, 14% African American, 14% Hispanic), (WHO, 2018). Investigating the causes, consequences, prevention and treatment of alcohol use disorder and alcohol related problems.² Our mission is to support research and then translate disseminate research findings to reduce alcohol related problems. According to the national institutes of health (NIH).³ Approximately 16 million individuals living in the United States having alcohol use disorder. Experts describe AUD as a “chronic relapsing brain disease” Where a person drinks compulsive often to the point of it interfering with their daily life/AUD is more complex than a person simply drinking excessively.⁴ Assessment of risk factors of alcoholic disorders will be helpful in planning for strategies to prevent control and modify the risk factors of alcoholic disorders.⁵ Even though there are studies on risk factors among alcoholic patients, there in paucity of research in this area in Tamil Nadu. Therefore this study was conducted to assess the risk factors of alcoholic disorders.

OBJECTIVES:

1. To assess the distribution of risk factors of alcoholic disorders among cases and controls.

2. To assess the risk factors of alcoholic disorders, by comparing the distribution of risk factors between cases and controls.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

The study was conducted using case control research design among 50 cases (Alcoholic clients) and 86 controls (normal population), who were selected using purposive sampling technique at Ayanambakkam Cases were identified using CAGE (Cut down, Annoyed, Guilty, and Eye Opener) screening tool for alcoholic disorder. Data was collected using, CAGE questionnaire, demographic variable proforma, clinical variable proforma, checklist to identify the risk factors of alcoholic disorder and proforma to assess the patterns of alcoholic usage through interview method. Collected data was analyzed using appropriate descriptive and inferential statistics in SPSS 20.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Majority of them were Hindus (68%, 67.44%), living in nuclear family (70%, 66.27%), were aged below 50 years (64%, 66.27%), had one child (70%, 66.27%) among cases and controls respectively. Regarding educational status, 44% in cases were illiterates and 61.62% in controls were graduates.

Majority of them had a family history of alcoholism (44.1%) in cases and no family history of alcoholism (70.9%) in controls, had no physical illness (30.9%, 63.9%) and no mental illness (5.34%, 97.6%). Study findings on prevalence of alcoholic disorders, revealed that, 37% of them were alcoholics.

Similar findings reported in the study conducted by Mohan & Chopra (2001), in three regions (central, north and north-east India), which involved 32,000 people and used standardized questionnaires based on DSM III.⁶ The objective of the study was to report the prevalence of alcohol use among males and females. The results revealed prevalence of current alcohol use of 20-38% in males and of 10% among females.⁷

There was a significant difference in distribution of family history of alcoholism (76%, 29.06%) between cases and controls. (p<0.001). Family history of alcoholism is found to be a risk factor of alcoholic disorder (p<0.05).⁸ Therefore the H₀2 ‘There will be no significant difference in clinical risk factors of alcoholic disorders between the cases and controls is retained except with regard to family history of alcoholism.⁹

Majority of them used fermented beverages as a form of alcohol (60%), not willing to go for treatment (76%), no history of de-addiction treatment (90%). With regard to other factors, 46% of them consumed alcohol for the first time to relieve from discomfort, 58% of them consumed one quarter of alcohol per day, 30% they had conflict in relationship, and 54% of them did not take any efforts in the past to cut down alcohol.¹⁰

Table 1: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Demographic Variable of Risk Factors of Cases and Controls

Variable	Cases n=50		Controls n=86
Variable	F	%	f	%
Age in years
>25	6	12	6	6.9
25-50	26	52	51	59.3
<50	18	36	29	33.7
Educational status
Illiterate	4	8	15	17.44
Primary	18	36	18	20.93
Secondary	12	24	29	33.72
Higher secondary	7	14	13	15.11
Graduate & above	9	18	11	12.7
Occupation
Government employee	10	20	15	17.44
Private employee	22	44	42	48.83
Business	7	14	18	20.9
Unemployed	5	10	7	8.13
Others	6	12	4	4.65
Marital status
Married	40	80	80	93.02
Divorced/separated	3	6	0	0
Unmarried	6	12	6	6.97
Widow/widower	1	2	0	0
Monthly family income
<5000	4	8	16	18.60
5001-10000	17	34	36	41.86
>10000	29	58	34	39.53
Religion
Hindu	34	68	58	67.44
Muslim	2	4	7	8.139
Christian	14	28	21	24.41
Type of family
Nuclear	35	70	57	66.27
Joint	15	30	29	33.72
Habitat
Rural	19	38	52	60.46
Urban	31	62	34	39.53
Number of children
No children	6	12	12	13.9
One	13	26	13	15.11
Two	22	44	41	47.6
>two	9	18	20	23.25
Taken care by
Parents	28	56	38	44.18
Sibling	1	2	9	10.4
Spouse	17	34	28	32.5
Children	3	6	9	10.46
Others	1	2	2	2.32

Table 2: Demographic Risk Factors of Cases and Controls

Variables	Cases (n=50)		Controls (n=86)		Chi square Value	P value
Variables	f	%	F	%	Chi square Value	P value
Age in years
≤50	32	64	57	66.27	0.0727	P>0.05 NS
>50	18	36	29	33.72	0.0727	P>0.05 NS
Educational status
Illiterate	22	44	33	38.37	0.4158	P>0.05 NS
Graduate & above	28	56	53	61.62	0.4158	P>0.05 NS
Occupation
Government employee	17	34	33	38.37	0.26	P>0.05 NS
Private employee	33	66	53	61.62	0.26	P>0.05 NS
Marital status
Married	40	80	80	93.02	5.1659	P<0.05 S
Divorced & Unmarried	10	20	6	6.97	5.1659	P<0.05 S
Monthly family income
<15000	21	42	52	60.46	4. 3356	P<0.05 S
>15000	29	58	34	39.53	4. 3356	P<0.05 S
Religion
Hindu	34	68	58	67.44	0.045	p>0.05 NS
Muslim & Christian	16	32	28	32.55	0.045	p>0.05 NS
Type of family
Nuclear	35	70	57	66.27	0.2	P>0.05 NS
Joint	15	30	29	33.72	0.2	P>0.05 NS
Number of children
<one	35	70	57	66.27	0.2	P>0.05 NS
>one	15	30	29	33.72	0.2	P>0.05 NS
Taken care by
Parents	28	56	38	44.18	1.7667	P>0.05 N S
Others	22	44	48	55.81	1.7667	P>0.05 N S

Table 3: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Clinical Risk Factors for Case and Controls

Variables	Cases n=50		Controls n=86		Chi square Value	P value
Variables	f	%	f	%	Chi square Value	P value
Family history of alcoholism
Yes	38	76	25	29.06	28.0059	P<0.05 S
No	12	24	61	70.93	28.0059	P<0.05 S
Physical illness
Yes	24	48	31	36.04	1.8756	P>0.05 NS
No	26	52	55	63.9	1.8756	P>0.05 NS
Psychological Mental illness
Yes	4	8	2	2.32	2.4141	P>0.05 NS
No	46	92	84	97.6	2.4141	P>0.05 NS

Table 4: Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Psychosocial Risk Factors of Cases and Controls

Variables	Cases (n=50)		Control (n=86)		Chi square Value	P value
Variables	f	%	f	%	Chi square Value	P value
High stress
Yes	13	26	22	25.5	0.0029	p>0.005 NS
No	37	74	64	74.4	0.0029	p>0.005 NS
Social support
Poor	15	30	24	27.9	0.0677	P>0.05 NS
Good	35	70	62	72.09	0.0677	P>0.05 NS
Peer support
Yes	20	40	25	29.06	1.7061	p>0.05 NS
No	30	60	61	70.9	1.7061	p>0.05 NS
Neglected by society
Yes	4	8	12	13.95	1.0796	p>0.05 NS
No	46	92	74	86.04	1.0796	p>0.05 NS
Financial problem
Yes	26	52	43	50	0.0506	P>0.05 NS
No	24	48	43	50	0.0506	P>0.05 NS
Leisure activities
Poor	18	36	29	33.7	0.0726	P>0.05 NS
Good	32	64	57	66.2	0.0726	P>0.05 NS
Religiosity
Poor	16	32	28	32.5	0.0045	P>0.05 NS
Moderate to high	34	68	58	67.4	0.0045	P>0.05 NS
Perceived self esteem
Poor	9	18	12	13.95	0.3965	P>0.05 NS
Good	41	82	74	86.04	0.3965	P>0.05 NS

LIMITATIONS:

1. The settings was selected based on the convenience of researcher.

2. The problem faced during the study was few patients refused to participate in the study and had problem in getting permission from community area.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

I would like to thank all the participants for supporting me to conduct this study. I would like to thank my research guide and clinical guide who helped me throughout the study. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks for all who has directly or indirectly helped me during my study period.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST:

The author declares no conflict of interest.

REFERENCE:

1. Ahuja, N. A short Text Book of Psychiatry, 6th Edtion, 2017. Jaypee,

2. Andrew et.al. A 4year longitudinal study on risk factors for alcoholism, Archives of General Psychiatry. 2010; 61(2): 184-191.

3. Buddy, T. (2010). Managing Anger as tool to maintain abstinence. Retrieved on 28 February, 2012, from http://www.Publicsystem.com.

4. Chakravathy.et al. Community workers estimate of drinking an alcohol related problems in rural areas. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine. 2014; 13: 49-56.

5. Edenberg, H. (2010). The collaborative Study On the Genetics Of Alcoholism An Update, retrieved on July 24 2012, from https://www.pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/ arh26-2/214-218.htm

6. Ertel. et. al. Prevalence of alcohol consumption and its risk factors among university students: A cross-sectional study across six universities in Myanmar. Plos One. 2020; 15(2): e0229329.

7. Fink, Hays, Moore. Alcohol related problems in older persons. American Journal of Nursing. 1996: 191-196.

8. Gerdner, A. and Holmberg, A. Factors Affecting Motivation to Treatment in Severely Dependent Alcoholics. Journal of Alcohol and Drugs. 2012: 4(61).

9. Halaevalu F.V. Family based predictors of adolescent substance use, Journal of Child and Adolescence Abuse. 2008; 11(3): 1-15. health, retrieved on July 2012, from http://www.healthchecksystems.com/alcohol.html

10. Indian Government Statistics (2010). The contribution of alcohol to the likelihood of completion and severity of injury in rape incidents, https://scholar.goohle.co.in/scholar?q=martin+%26+bachman+et+al.1998+alcoholism&hl=en&as_sdt=0/7as_vis+1&oi=scholart

11. Koper, et.al. Alcohol and social behavior: I. The psychology of drunken excess. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2007; 48(1): 18.

12. Liberto. et.al. Alcohol related disease in general hospital patients Journal of Alcohol Related Diseases. 1997; 42(2): 179-184

13. Martin. et.al. Effects of condansetron in early‐versus late‐onset alcoholics: a prospective, open‐label study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research. 2003; 27(7): 1150-1155.

14. Saw. et.al. 2018. Prevalence of alcohol use.

Received on 16.04.2024 Revised on 13.01.2025

Accepted on 19.05.2025 Published on 22.07.2025

Available online from July 26, 2025

Res.J. Pharmacology and Pharmacodynamics.2025;17(3):178-180.

DOI: 10.52711/2321-5836.2025.00029

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.