PLOS Global Public Health (Jan 2023)

Alcohol use among emergency medicine department patients in Tanzania: A comparative analysis of injury versus non-injury patients.

  • Alena Pauley,
  • Emily C Thatcher,
  • Joshua T Sarafian,
  • Siddhesh Zadey,
  • Frida Shayo,
  • Blandina T Mmbaga,
  • Francis Sakita,
  • Judith Boshe,
  • João Ricardo Nickenig Vissoci,
  • Catherine A Staton

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0001900
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 3, no. 11
p. e0001900

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundAlcohol is a leading behavioral risk factor for death and disability worldwide. Tanzania has few trained personnel and resources for treating unhealthy alcohol use. In Emergency Medicine Departments (EMDs), alcohol is a well-known risk factor for injury patients. At Kilimanjaro Christian Medical Center (KCMC) in Moshi, Tanzania, 30% of EMD injury patients (IP) test positive for alcohol upon arrival to the ED. While the IP population is prime for EMD-based interventions, there is limited data on if non-injury patients (NIP) have similar alcohol use behavior and potentially benefit from screening and intervention as well.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a systematic random sampling of adult (≥18 years old), KiSwahili speaking, KCMC EMD patients surveyed between October 2021 and May 2022. When medically stable and clinically sober, participants provided informed consent. Information on demographics (sex, age, years of education, type of employment, income, marital status, tribe, and religion), injury status, self-reported alcohol use, and Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) Identification Test (AUDIT) scores were collected. Descriptive statistics were analyzed in RStudio using frequencies and proportions.ResultsOf the 376 patients enrolled, 59 (15.7%) presented with an injury. The IP and NIP groups did not differ in any demographics except sex, an expected difference as females were intentionally oversampled in the original study design. The mean [SD] AUDIT score (IP: 5.8 [6.6]; NIP: 3.9 [6.1]), drinks per week, and proportion of AUDIT ≥8 was higher for IP (IP:37%; NIP: 21%). However, alcohol preferences, drinking quantity, weekly expenditure on alcohol, perceptions of unhealthy alcohol use, attempts and reasons to quit, and treatment seeking were comparable between IPs and NIPs.ConclusionOur data suggests 37% of injury and 20% of non-injury patients screen positive for harmful or hazardous drinking in our setting. An EMD-based alcohol treatment and referral process could be beneficial to reduce this growing behavioral risk factor in non-injury as well as injury populations.