AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 1144–1150 | Cite as

Inebriation, Drinking Motivations and Sexual Risk Taking Among Sexually Transmitted Disease Clinic Patients in St. Petersburg, Russia

  • Nadia Abdala
  • Lauretta E. Grau
  • Weihai Zhan
  • Alla V. Shaboltas
  • Roman V. Skochilov
  • Andrei P. Kozlov
  • Tatiana V. Krasnoselskikh
Open Access
Original Paper

Abstract

We investigated whether inebriation was associated with having non-main partners and unprotected sex with non-main partners and whether drinking motivations were associated with sexual risk behaviors among patients attending an STD clinic in St Petersburg, Russia. A cross-sectional behavior survey was applied to 362 participants between 2008 and 2009. Multivariate logistic regression was used for analysis. At-risk drinking per Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) criteria (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.4–4.4) was independently associated with having non-main sexual partners. Inebriation (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.3–8.1) but not at-risk drinking or drinking prior to sex was associated with unprotected sex with non-main partners. Among drinkers, the consumption of alcohol to facilitate sexual encounters (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.6–4.5) was associated with having non-main sexual partners. HIV prevention programs in Russia must address inebriation in addition to conventional patterns of problem drinking such as those measured by AUDIT-C and consider individuals’ motivations to drink that lead to sexual risk taking.

Keywords

Sexual risk behaviors STD clinic Russia Drinking motivation Inebriation AUDIT-C 

Introduction

The level of alcohol consumption in Russia is among the highest in the world [1]. Alcohol related problems in Russia are varied including high mortality due to alcohol poisoning [2, 3], high crime rates [4, 5] and a greater risk for health problems [1, 6]. Problem drinking is also an important health concern because it is associated with sexual behaviors that place individuals at risk for HIV [7]. Furthermore, data from the Russian Ministry of Health show that sexual transmission of HIV has increased between 2002 and 2007 [8], indicating that the HIV epidemic could be spreading to the general population [8, 9]. Thus, the design and prioritization of public health interventions to prevent the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases including HIV (STDs/HIV), and to reduce alcohol-related morbidity and mortality in Russia would benefit greatly from a better understanding between problem drinking and sexual risk taking.

The high rates of alcohol related negative outcomes in Russia has been partly attributed to a preference for distilled spirits and a high social tolerance for heavy drinking throughout the country [10, 11]. Inebriation is an important factor related to heavy drinking and is often reported as the basis for hazardous drinking. A study in Russia identified 10% of participants who drank with the intention to become drunk for extended periods of time and withdraw from normal life [12]. In this study, this pattern of drinking to inebriation was associated with unemployment and with low levels of education [12]. In studies of adolescents and young adults from Finland, the United States and Britain, drunkenness, or drinking to get drunk, was shown to be associated with having multiple sexual partners [13], unplanned sexual intercourse [14] and intercourse before the age of 16 [15]. A recent study of trends in alcohol consumption among adolescents across different countries revealed that in Russia the trends for alcohol use and drunkenness were opposite. That is, while monthly drinking declined, drunkenness increased [16]. Therefore, the investigation of the specific outcomes associated with inebriation patterns may be useful in designing programs to reduce alcohol related harm in Russia.

Since cultural factors may influence one’s motivation to drink, a study of the particular motivations of different individuals may provide helpful information regarding the context of alcohol related risk behaviors. This is especially the case in Russia, where evidence suggests that alcohol use is particularly accepted or even encouraged [7, 17], thereby providing social and cultural contexts that may increase the risk of alcohol related negative outcomes. Despite previous studies showing that economic strain and emotional distress may be associated with drinking problems in Russia [18, 19], few studies have investigated drinking motivations, especially not in relation to sexual risk behaviors that potentially expose individuals to STDs/HIV.

For these reasons we conducted an initial study to investigate the association of sexual risk behaviors with inebriation frequency and drinking motivations among a sample of Russian STD clinic patients. Given the greater risk for STD transmission and of an expansion of the HIV epidemic from having sex with non-main partners rather than with main partners [20, 21], this study analyzed drinking patterns in relation to non-main sexual partnerships. Specifically, this study sought to do the following: (1) to determine whether inebriation was associated with having non-main partners; (2) to determine whether, among non-main partnerships, inebriation was independently associated with unprotected sex; and (3) among those who used alcohol, to assess whether drinking motivation was associated with sexual risk taking.

Methods

Setting and Study Procedures

This study was conducted at the Dispensary for Skin and Venereal Diseases (STD clinic) in Kalininsky District, St. Petersburg, Russia from July 2008 to February 2009. The clinic, which is funded by the government of St. Petersburg, sees approximately 2,500 patients per year and provides services free of charge or for a nominal fee. The majority of patients are district residents. Consecutive individuals above 18 years of age who presented with genitourinary complaints or a need for STD-related services (e.g., STD symptoms, STD testing or STD counseling) were invited to participate in the study. Potential participants were informed of the purpose of the study and assured that the survey was anonymous and voluntary. Those who agreed to participate and provided written informed consent completed the self-administered survey in a private office at the clinic. The study was approved by the institutional review boards at the Biomedical Center in St. Petersburg, Russia and Yale University, USA.

Data Collection and Measures

A 58-item questionnaire was used to collect information regarding socio-demographics, health status, motivations for alcohol use and HIV-associated sexual risk behaviors. Socio-demographic items included age, sex, occupation, education, income, and marital and housing status. Self-reported health data included history of STD diagnoses, HIV testing and results, illicit drug use in the previous 3 months, and lifetime injection drug use.

Participants were asked whether they consumed alcoholic beverages, the frequency of alcohol use in the last 3 months, the typical number of alcoholic drinks at each drinking session, the number of times they drank more than six drinks in a row per drinking occasion in the previous 3 months and the frequency with which they drank to inebriation during the previous 3 months. Inebriation was defined as drinking to inebriation once a month or more often. At-risk drinking was defined as scores greater than three for males and greater than two for females according to the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) raw aggregate score. Previous studies have shown that AUDIT-C can effectively identify alcohol misuse [22, 23]; therefore this variable was included in our analyses.

Following questions about alcohol use in the previous three months, participants were asked to indicate in a four point Likert scale, possible reasons or contexts within which they drank. Based on a need to limit the time to complete the questionnaire to approximately 1 h, 11 items were selected and translated from existing measures [24, 25]. These were used to assess motivations for drinking among those participants who reported alcohol use. Questions related to enhancing mood included the following: I drink alcohol because (1) it helps me when I feel depressed, (2) it helps me when I feel nervous, (3) it makes me feel more positive about my future and (4) it makes me feel more powerful. Questions related to the facilitation of sex were the following: I drink alcohol (1) to create a romantic mood for my relationship, (2) because I enjoy sex more after I drink alcohol and (3) because alcohol helps me incline my partner toward sex. Questions related to the facilitation of social interactions were the following: I drink alcohol because (1) it is customary on special occasions, (2) my friends will be more accepting of me when I drink, (3) alcohol makes me feel less shy and (4) it is easier for me to talk to people when I drink. We assumed a priori that the 11 items would cluster as three subscales (i.e., mood enhancement, facilitation of social interactions, and facilitation of sex [26]). To confirm our assumption, we calculated inter-item correlations using Cronbach’s alpha. Items correlated sufficiently to justify the creation of two subscales, (1) mood enhancement (four items; alpha = 0.725) and (2) facilitation of sex (three items; alpha = 0.734). Items regarding the motivations to facilitate social interactions subscale were excluded from further analyses due to low inter-item reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.2). For the remaining two subscales, we computed z-scores for each item, summed the z-scores for the respective items within each subscale and subsequently dichotomized each subscale (based on a median split).

HIV-associated sexual risk behavior data were collected for two types of sexual partners: main/regular partner and non-main partners (i.e., casual or commercial). For each partner category, respondents were asked about the number of partners they had had within the preceding 3 months, the number of vaginal and the number of anal sex acts in the preceding 30 days, the number of vaginal and the number of anal sex acts in which condoms were used in the preceding 30 days, and the number of vaginal and anal sex acts in which alcohol was consumed prior to sex in the preceding 30 days. Participants’ reporting of alcohol use prior to intercourse with a non-main partner (yes/no) was considered as having consumed “alcohol prior to sex.”

Having non-main sexual partners was chosen as the outcome of interest because data were collected regarding sex practices with main and non-main partners as categories. Unprotected sex with non-main sexual partners was chosen as a second outcome because sexual risk behaviors, including the effects of alcohol use prior to sex, have been shown to vary significantly based on whether a sexual partner is a main or a non-main partner [20, 27]. Moreover, as explained in the introduction, a greater risk of STD transmission and of a generalization of the HIV epidemic arises from having sex with non-main partners rather than main partners [21]. Similarly, we included whether participants lived with parents/relatives in our analyses because of evidence that living with family may influence the occurrence of substance use and sexual risk behaviors and how risky these behaviors are when they take place [28, 29].

Data Analysis

This analysis began with the investigation of inebriation in relation to two main dichotomous outcomes: (1) having a non-main sexual partner in the prior 3 months and (2) among those reporting non-main partners, having unprotected sex with that partner. Standard descriptive statistics were used to describe the sample. Bivariate associations between outcomes and independent variables, such as socio-demographics, health risks, at-risk drinking and alcohol use prior to sex, were initially assessed, and associations at P < 0.20 were entered into multivariate logistic regression models. Backward stepwise elimination was used to produce adjusted odds ratios for those variables with P values ≤0.05. To assess independent associations between inebriation and unprotected sex with non-main partners, a similar analysis restricted to those participants who reported having non-main partners was conducted. Finally, to assess whether an independent association existed between drinking motivations and the two sexual risk outcomes, we conducted additional analyses restricted to those reporting alcohol use in the preceding 3 months. Similar procedures to those described above were used to produce multivariate models that included drinking motivations as independent variables. All data were analyzed using SPSS 17.

Results

Characteristics of the Study Sample

A total of 440 STD clinic patients completed the questionnaire. Fifty-nine participants who reported having no sex partner and 19 who did not report the number of their sex partners were excluded from the current analysis. The final sample included in this analysis totaled 362 participants.

The study sample was 65% male (Table 1); only four men reported having male sex partners. The median age was 25 years; 56% possessed at least some university education; 69% resided in housing that they owned; 65% were employed full-time; 46% were married, and 51% lived with parents or relatives. The most frequently reported income range was from 15,000 to 29,999 rubles per month (equivalent to approximately 575.00–1,150.00 US dollars). Most participants (69%) reported having been tested at least once for HIV; of those, 97% reported receiving negative results, and the remainder reported not having returned for their test results. With respect to STD history, 11% reported having been diagnosed with gonorrhea, chlamydia, or syphilis within the preceding 6 months.
Table 1

Characteristics of study participants (n = 362)

 

n (%)a

Demographics

 Male

235 (64.9)

 Age (median years, interquartile range)

25, 21–30

 At least some university education

204 (56.3)

 Lives in own home

250 (69.4)

 Employed full time

234 (64.6)

 Monthly income below 15,000–29,999 rublesb

121 (36.0)

 Married

167 (46.3)

 Living with parents or relatives

181 (50.6)

Sexual behaviors and HIV/STD testing

 At least one non-main sexual partner, past 3 months

124 (34.0)

 Had unprotected sex with a non-main partnerc

45 (48.9)

 Ever tested for HIV

232 (68.8)

 HIV-negative test result

218 (96.5)

 Had an STD in the past 6 monthsd

37 (11.0)

Patterns of substance use

 Ever injected illicit drugs

11 (3.2)

 Used alcohol, past 3 months

320 (89.1)

 Inebriated (drunk) at least once a month, past 3 months

116 (33.4)

 At-risk drinking per AUDIT-C, past 3 months

173 (50.3)

 Alcohol prior to sex with non-main partnerc

71 (75.5)

aDue to missing data percentage may not be among the total 362 participants

bThe most frequently endorsed income range

cAmong those with non-main partners

dSyphilis, chlamydia or gonorrhea (self reported by participant)

Drug injection in the previous 3 months was reported by 3%. The majority of participants (89%) reported consuming alcohol within the previous 3 months. A total of 33 and 50% of all respondents reported monthly inebriation and received an at-risk drinking score, respectively. At least one non-main partnership in the previous 3 months was reported by 34%. Of the 124 participants who reported having non-main partnerships and reported on condom use within those partnerships, 50% reported at least one act of unprotected sex within the previous 30 days and 76% reported alcohol consumption prior to sex with that partner.

Correlates of Having Non-Main Partnerships

The results of bivariate and multivariate logistic regressions for the outcome of reporting at least one non-main sex partner in the 3 months prior to the interview are presented in Table 2. Multivariate analysis among all participants (n = 362) showed non-main partnerships to be independently associated with being male, unmarried, and at-risk drinking.
Table 2

Logistic regression, had non-main sex partner(s) in last 3 months (n = 362)

Independent variable

uOR (95% CI)

P value

aOR (95% CI)

P value

Male

3.1 (1.8–5.1)

<0.0001

1.8 (1.0–3.2)

0.037

Married

0.4 (0.3–0.7)

<0.0001

0.5 (0.3–0.8)

0.008

Lives with parents or relatives

1.7 (1.1–2.6)

0.023

Inebriated at least monthly

2.5 (1.3–4.6)

0.005

1.7 (1.0–3.0)

0.056

At-risk drinking per AUDIT-C

4.0 (2.5–6.6)

<0.0001

2.5 (1.4–4.4)

0.001

Also controlled for age, education, employment, residence ownership and income (none significant)

Correlates of Having Unprotected Sex Among Non-Main Partnerships

In an analysis restricted to participants who reported having non-main partnerships in the previous 3 months (n = 124), unprotected sex was independently associated with being unmarried and with inebriation once a month or more often (Table 3).
Table 3

Logistic regression, unprotected sex (among those who had non-main sex partners only) (n = 124)

Independent variable

uOR (95% CI)

P value

aOR (95% CI)

P value

Married

0.3 (0.1–0.8)

0.010

0.3 (0.1–0.7)

0.012

Inebriated at least monthly

3.1 (1.3–7.6)

0.012

3.2 (1.3–8.1)

0.014

At-risk drinking per AUDIT-C

1.2 (0.5–3.3)

0.67

Alcohol prior to sex

1.0 (0.4–2.6)

0.98

Also controlled for age, sex, education, employment, residence ownership, living with parents or relatives, and income (all not significant)

Drinking Motivations Among Participants

In a model that included the two drinking motivation subscales and was restricted to those participants reporting alcohol consumption (n = 320; Table 4), having a non-main partnership was independently associated with consuming alcohol to facilitate sexual encounters.
Table 4

Logistic regression, had non-main sex partner(s) in last 3 months (among drinkers) (n = 320)

Independent variable

uOR (95% CI)

P value

aOR (95% CI)

P value

Male

2.3 (1.4–3.9)

0.002

2.0 (1.1–3.7)

0.017

Married

0.4 (0.3–0.7)

0.001

0.6 (0.3–0.9)

0.050

Lives with parents or relatives

1.6 (1.0–2.6)

0.044

Drinks to improve mood

1.8 (1.1–3.1)

0.016

Drinks to facilitate sexual encounters

2.9 (1.7–4.8)

<0.0001

2.7 (1.6–4.5)

<0.0001

Also controlled for age, education, employment, residence ownership and income (all not significant)

Drinking motivations were not independently associated with unprotected sex among those who had non-main sexual partners

In the analysis restricted to participants who reported non-main sexual partnerships in the previous 3 months, neither drinking to improve one’s mood nor to facilitate sex was associated with the outcome of unprotected sex (not shown in the table).

Discussion

At-risk drinking was independently associated with having non-main sexual partners. This is consistent with a previous finding that showed alcohol use to be culturally accepted as a facilitator of sexual encounters among Russian men in particular [7].

Unprotected sex with non-main partners was associated with inebriation and not with at-risk drinking. Our results are consistent with findings from a previous study that failed to detect an association between condom use and a heavy drinking pattern such as binge drinking among substance users in Russia [30], and with a study showing evidence that frequency of intoxication may better detect certain types of alcohol related harm than drinking volume [31]. The greater risk for unprotected sex associated with inebriation compared to at-risk drinking can be explained by the subjective or idiosyncratic nature of the interpretation of drunkenness [32, 33], i.e., inebriation may be reported even by individuals who have ingested low volumes of alcohol. The risks associated with inebriation may result from a lower tolerance for the sedative and light-headed effects of alcohol [34, 35], a lower self-efficacy to reduce risk behaviors [36] or drinking motivations or expectations that lead to sexual risk taking [37] among those who become inebriated compared to those who do not. Thus, our results suggest that frequency of inebriation is an important drinking pattern for the identification of sexual risk behaviors among populations at risk for STDs/HIV in Russia and it should be taken in consideration by programs to reduce sexual HIV transmission and alcohol related harms.

Unprotected sex with non-main partners was associated with inebriation at least once a month, rather than with drinking prior to sex. This finding is consistent with results suggesting that associations between inebriation at the time of intercourse and unprotected sex might reflect the greater probability of a heavy or frequent drinker being inebriated at any given moment, rather than the effect of drinking during sexual occasions [38]. This is especially true for this study sample, because the majority of the participants reported drinking prior to sex. Our findings suggest that interventions that address general (i.e., monthly) patterns of alcohol use rather than alcohol use in sexual situations may be able to reduce rates of unprotected sex among this population. These results should be confirmed by future studies that include event level strategies to identify drinking patterns that may lead to unprotected sex among participants.

Drinking to facilitate sex was associated with having non-main sex partners, further supporting the notion that alcohol use is a culturally accepted facilitator of sexual encounters and perhaps a demonstration of masculinity among Russian men [7]. One European study [39] identified two basic classes of drinking motivations: (a) drinking to reduce tension or emotional distress and (b) drinking to facilitate social contacts. Our results may be consistent with findings from researchers who suggest that drinking to increase sexual activity plays a role primarily in the latter category of drinking motivations [40]. Our findings suggest that studies to reduce alcohol related harm in Russia may benefit from investigating and addressing drinking motivations that lead to sexual risk behaviors in populations at risk for STDs.

Several limitations of the study should be noted. The data were collected from a clinical rather than a probability sample, which may limit the potential ability to generalize the study’s findings. Because recruitment occurred with help from the STD physicians and not all clinic physicians participated in this study, our results may have been different from that of another patient sample taken from this same clinic. The self-reported data are likely vulnerable to recall and social desirability biases, potentially resulting in an underestimation of alcohol use or the prevalence of non-main partnerships. Little is known about cultural differences in self-reports of substance use and sexual behavior in Russia. The data concerning alcohol consumption during or just prior to sexual activity did not assess the participants’ level of inebriation, the drinking behaviors of their partners, or how long drinking occurred prior to sex. Participants’ motivations to get drunk were not assessed. The drinking motivation items have not been validated for use in the Russian population; therefore they may not be an accurate measure of motivations for drinking among this population.

Conclusions

HIV prevention programs to reduce alcohol related sexual risk behaviors among populations at risk for STDs in Russia must address patterns of inebriation in addition to conventional patterns of problem drinking, such as those measured by AUDIT-C. Health promotion interventions should aim to increase awareness of how drinking patterns and drinking in order to facilitate sexual encounters may place people at risk for HIV/STD infection.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by Grant Number R01AA017389 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (PI: N. Abdala). Additional support was provided by the Center for Interdisciplinary Research on AIDS (NIMH P30MH062294) and the Yale AIDS International Training and Research Program “Training and Research in HIV Prevention in Russia” (5 D43 TW001028).

Conflict of Interest

No competing financial interests exist. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

References

  1. 1.
    WHO. Global status report on alcohol. Geneva: Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse; 2004.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rehm J, Sulkowska U, Manczuk M, et al. Alcohol accounts for a high proportion of premature mortality in central and Eastern Europe. Int J Epidemol. 2007;36(2):458–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Leon DA, Saburova L, Tomkins S, et al. Hazardous alcohol drinking and premature mortality in Russia: a population based case-control study. Lancet. 2007;369:2001–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pridemore WA, Chamlin MB. A time-series analysis of the impact of heavy drinking on homicide and suicide mortality in Russia, 1956–2002. Addiction. 2006;101:1719–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chervyakov VV, Shkolnikov VM, Pridemore WA, McKee M. The changing nature of murder in Russia. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:1713–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Malyutina S, Bobak M, Kurilovitch S, et al. Relation between heavy and binge drinking and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in Novosibirsk, Russia: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2002;360:1448–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    WHO. Alcohol use and sexual risk behaviour: a cross-cultural study in eight countries, Geneva: Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse; 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Country progress report of the russian federation on the implementation of the declaration of commitment on HIV/AIDS. Moscow: Ministry of Health and Social Development of the Russian Federation; 2008.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    UNAIDS/WHO. Aids epidemic update: Eastern Europe and Central Asia: Geneva; 2009.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pridemore WA. Weekend effects on binge drinking and homicide: the social connection between alcohol and violence in Russia. Addiction. 2004;99:1034–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Popova S, Rehm J, Patra J, Zatonski W. Comparing alcohol consumption in central and Eastern Europe to other European countries. Alcohol Alcohol. 2007;42:465–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tomkins S, Saburova L, Kiryanov N, et al. Prevalence and socio-economic distribution of hazardous patterns of alcohol drinking: study of alcohol consumption in men aged 25–54 years in Izhevsk, Russia. Addiction. 2007;102:544–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lavikainen HM, Lintonen T, Kosunen E. Sexual behavior and drinking style among teenagers: a population-based study in Finland. Health Promot Int. 2009;24:108–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hingson R, Heeren T, Winter MR, Wechsler H. Early age of first drunkenness as a factor in college students’ unplanned and unprotected sex attributable to drinking. Pediatrics. 2003;111:34–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Aicken CR, Nardone A, Mercer CH. Alcohol misuse, sexual risk behaviour and adverse sexual health outcomes: evidence from Britain’s national probability sexual behaviour surveys. J Public Health (Oxf). 2011;33(2):262–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simons-Morton BG, Farhat T, ter Bogt TF, et al. Gender specific trends in alcohol use: cross-cultural comparisons from 1998 to 2006 in 24 countries and regions. Int J Public Health. 2009;54(Suppl 2):199–208.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pomerleau J, McKee M, Rose R, Haerpfer CW, Rotman D, Tumanov S. Drinking in the commonwealth of independent states–evidence from eight countries. Addiction. 2005;100:1647–68.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jukkala T, Makinen IH, Kislitsyna O, Ferlander S, Vagero D. Economic strain, social relations, gender, and binge drinking in Moscow. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66:663–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Koposov RA, Ruchkin VV, Eisemann M, Sidorov PI. Alcohol use in adolescents from northern Russia: the role of the social context. Alcohol Alcohol. 2002;37:297–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Scott-Sheldon LA, Carey MP, Vanable PA, Senn TE, Coury-Doniger P, Urban MA. Alcohol consumption, drug use, and condom use among STD clinic patients. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2009;70:762–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blanchard JF, Kang H, Emmanuel F, Paul SR. Aids in South Asia: understanding and responding to a heterogenous epidemic. Washington D.C.: World Bank Publications; 2006.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Frank D, DeBenedetti AF, Volk RJ, Williams EC, Kivlahan DR, Bradley KA. Effectiveness of the AUDIT-C as a screening test for alcohol misuse in three race/ethnic groups. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:781–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Aalto M, Alho H, Halme JT, Seppa K. Audit and its abbreviated versions in detecting heavy and binge drinking in a general population survey. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2009;103:25–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    George WH, Frone MR, Cooper ML, Russell M, Skinner JB, Windle M. A revised alcohol expectancy questionnaire: factor structure confirmation, and invariance in a general population sample. J Stud Alcohol. 1995;56:177–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Grant VV, Stewart SH, O’Connor RM, Blackwell E, Conrod PJ. Psychometric evaluation of the five-factor modified drinking motives questionnaire–revised in undergraduates. Addict Behav. 2007;32:2611–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ichiyama MA, Kruse MI. The social contexts of binge drinking among private university freshmen. J Alcohol Drug Educ. 1998;44:18–33.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brown JL, Vanable PA. Alcohol use, partner type, and risky sexual behavior among college students: findings from an event-level study. Addict Behav. 2007;32:2940–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Oman RF, Vesely SF, Aspy CB. Youth assets and sexual risk behavior: the importance of assets for youth residing in one-parent households. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2005;37:25–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Heimer R, Barbour R, Shaboltas AV, Hoffman IF, Kozlov AP. Spatial distribution of HIV prevalence and incidence among injection drugs users in St Petersburg: implications for HIV transmission. AIDS. 2008;22:123–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Raj A, Cheng DM, Krupitsky EM, et al. Binge drinking and unsafe sex: a study of narcology hospital patients from St. Petersburg, Russia. Subst Abus. 2009;30:213–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rossow I, Romelsjo A. The extent of the ‘prevention paradox’ in alcohol problems as a function of population drinking patterns. Addiction. 2006;101:84–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Courtney KE, Polich J. Binge drinking in young adults: data, definitions, and determinants. Psychol Bull. 2009;135:142–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krober HL, Graw M. Reported alcohol consumption results in systematically misjudged degrees of alcoholisation. Psychiatr Prax. 2010;37:4–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rose AK, Grunsell L. The subjective, rather than the disinhibiting, effects of alcohol are related to binge drinking. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2008;32:1096–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lee H, Roh S, Kim DJ. Alcohol-induced blackout. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2009;6:2783–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Oei TP, Morawska A. A cognitive model of binge drinking: the influence of alcohol expectancies and drinking refusal self-efficacy. Addict Behav. 2004;29:159–79.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Maisto SA, Carey MP, Carey KB, Gordon CM, Schum JL. Effects of alcohol and expectancies on HIV-related risk perception and behavioral skills in heterosexual women. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol. 2004;12:288–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Leigh BC, Miller P. The relationship of substance use with sex to the use of condoms among young adults in two urban areas of Scotland. AIDS Educ Prev. 1995;7:278–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kuntsche E, Rehm J, Gmel G. Characteristics of binge drinkers in Europe. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:113–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stolle M, Sack PM, Thomasius R. Binge drinking in childhood and adolescence: epidemiology, consequences, and interventions. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009;106:323–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadia Abdala
    • 1
  • Lauretta E. Grau
    • 1
  • Weihai Zhan
    • 2
  • Alla V. Shaboltas
    • 3
  • Roman V. Skochilov
    • 3
  • Andrei P. Kozlov
    • 3
  • Tatiana V. Krasnoselskikh
    • 3
  1. 1.Yale School of Public HealthNew HavenUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyWesleyan UniversityMiddletownUSA
  3. 3.The Biomedical CenterSt. PetersburgRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations