Elsevier

Addictive Behaviors

Volume 83, August 2018, Pages 35-41
Addictive Behaviors

Assessment of alcohol intake: Retrospective measures versus a smartphone application

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.11.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Real-time assessment of drinking behaviour using a smartphone app was explored.

  • Participants logged more drinking days via the app compared to Timeline Followback.

  • Total intake was higher when recorded using the app relative to Timeline Followback.

  • The app captured a greater number of high intake episodes than Timeline Followback.

  • The app showed faster rate of consumption than the Alcohol Use Questionnaire.

Abstract

Introduction

Research investigating problem drinking often relies on retrospective measures to assess alcohol consumption behaviour. Limitations associated with such instruments can, however, distort actual consumption levels and patterns. We developed the smartphone application (app), CNLab-A, to assess alcohol intake behaviour in real-time.

Methods

Healthy individuals (N = 671, M age 23.12) completed demographic questions plus the Alcohol Use Questionnaire and a 21-day Timeline Followback before using CNLab-A for 21 days. The app asked participants to record alcohol consumption details in real time. We compared data reported via retrospective measures with that captured using CNLab-A.

Results

On average, participants submitted data on 20.27 days using CNLab-A. Compared to Timeline Followback, a significantly greater percentage of drinking days (24.79% vs. 26.44%) and significantly higher total intake (20.30 vs. 24.26 standard drinks) was recorded via the app. CNLab-A captured a substantially greater number of high intake occasions at all levels from 8 or more drinks than Timeline Followback. Additionally, relative to the Alcohol Use Questionnaire, a significantly faster rate of consumption was recorded via the app.

Conclusions

CNLab-A provided more nuanced information regarding quantity and pattern of alcohol intake than the retrospective measures. In particular, it revealed higher levels of drinking than retrospective reporting. This will have implications for how particular at-risk alcohol consumption patterns are identified in future and might enable a more sophisticated exploration of the causes and consequences of drinking behaviour.

Introduction

In research focusing on the causes and consequences of problem drinking, accurate assessment of alcohol use – both in terms of volume and pattern – is vital. Currently, such research relies primarily on data collected using well-validated and reliable retrospective self-report measures administered in the laboratory. Retrospective measures can be broadly categorised into two main types: quantity-frequency surveys and retrospective diaries. In their simplest form, quantity-frequency surveys ask participants to specify how much they usually drink and how often (Utpala-Kumar & Deane, 2010). This permits average daily consumption to be determined rapidly and efficiently, but does not allow for any investigation of pattern of intake (Del Boca & Darkes, 2003). Moreover, such surveys have been found to under-estimate total consumption by almost 30% when compared to prospective daily assessments (Heeb & Gmel, 2005) and up to 50% when compared to per capita sales of alcohol (Stockwell et al., 2004, Stockwell et al., 2008). This discrepancy is attributed, at least in part, to difficulties participants have conceptualizing their usual consumption, especially if their intake is highly variable across drinking occasions, a tendency to overlook occasional high intake sessions, and recall bias (Del Boca and Darkes, 2003, Stockwell et al., 2004). Participants are consequently thought to report modal rather than average consumption in response to quantity-frequency surveys (Utpala-Kumar & Deane, 2010).

The accuracy and detail of data obtained from quantity-frequency surveys can be enhanced somewhat by the inclusion of additional components. Beverage-specific questions, an explicit reference period, and including items that assess high intake behaviour have all been found to generate increased estimates of consumption and more comprehensive information about pattern of intake (Dawson, 2003, Del Boca and Darkes, 2003, Rehm, 1998). A number of measures adopt this type of approach. The Alcohol Use Questionnaire (AUQ), for instance, combines beverage-specific quantity-frequency questions about weekly intake over a six-month period with items that assess drinking behaviour and subjective effects (Mehrabian & Russell, 1978). Weekly intake, rate of consumption, and a composite binge score index can be derived from this measure (Townshend & Duka, 2002). Although this provides some insight into total intake and pattern of consumption, it nonetheless has still been found to under-estimate total intake when compared to prospective daily assessments (Townshend & Duka, 2002). Furthermore, binge behaviour is frequently determined based on tertile or median splits of the sample (Townshend and Duka, 2005, Townshend et al., 2014). Results are therefore inextricably bound to the sample studied (Bø, Billieux, & Landrø, 2016).

Retrospective diary methods of collecting alcohol consumption information ask participants to recall day-to-day intake over a preceding designated time period (Del Boca & Darkes, 2003). Alcohol Timeline Followback (TLFB; Sobell & Sobel, 1992) is a commonly employed, well-validated example of this technique. Such diaries furnish researchers with considerable information pertaining to volume consumed and pattern of intake (Kypri, Langley, & Stephenson, 2005). In a review of more than thirty papers, however, Feunekes, van't Veer, van Staveren, and Kok (1999) found these diaries significantly under-estimate consumption levels – by about 20% – when compared to quantity-frequency surveys and prospective assessments. A study comparing repeated 7-day TLFB with 30-day TLFB revealed how more frequent assessments identified higher volume of intake, greater frequency of binge episodes and fewer abstinent days, with the absolute value of volumetric discrepancies between the two measures increasing as a function of length of recall (Hoeppner, Stout, Jackson, & Barnett, 2010). Longer assessment time periods yield less precise data (Ekholm, 2004); however, collecting data over narrow time frames distorts alcohol consumption information because drinking behaviour has been found to vary considerably from week to week (Del Boca et al., 2004, Goldman et al., 2011).

Real-time assessment of alcohol intake and pattern of consumption potentially overcome disadvantages associated with retrospective measures. Such assessment enables drinking to be recorded repeatedly, in close proximity to the event, often in the natural environment, and in the absence of the researcher (Trull & Ebner-Priemer, 2013). To date, studies comparing daily intake recorded via hand-held electronic devices and interactive voice response systems with that captured using retrospective methods have yielded varied results. In some cases, real-time assessments have revealed significantly higher consumption (Searles, Helzer, Rose, & Badger, 2002) or greater variability of intake (Carney, Tennen, Affleck, Del Boca, & Kranzler, 1998), while in others no significant differences have been identified (Bernhardt et al., 2009). Moreover, such devices pose a significant cost to researchers, potentially limiting the scope of the research (Kuntsche and Labhart, 2013, Trull and Ebner-Priemer, 2013). They additionally place considerable burden on participants, possibly diminishing compliance (Kuntsche and Labhart, 2013, Shiffman et al., 2008). With the advent of smartphones and application technologies (apps), real-time assessment limitations can be reduced. Researchers can take advantage of high smartphone ownership (Poushter, 2016), for instance, by using apps on participants' own devices to collect data. Apps enable considerable information about drink type, size, and ethanol content to be quickly logged, reducing the burden on participants in terms of time required to record information. Their capacity to compute rate of consumption and standard drink calculations reduce the potential for inaccurate reporting.

Few studies to date have validated app assessment of alcohol intake and pattern of consumption with retrospective measures. Monk, Heim, Qureshi, and Price (2015) found healthy participants (n = 51) recorded greater consumption when using an app for 7 days as compared to when such information was gathered retrospectively using researcher-generated beverage-specific surveys. Similarly, alcohol intake recorded daily via an app over a six-week period was shown to be significantly higher than when reported using TLFB; indeed, discrepancies between the measures increased over time (Dulin, Alvarado, Fitterling, & Gonzalez, 2017). Participants (n = 25) in this study, however, were diagnosed as alcohol dependent and were simultaneously undertaking treatment modules deployed by the app (Dulin et al., 2017). In both studies, sample size was relatively modest and retrospective data were collected after real-time recording, potentially enhancing participants' recall of drinking information and thus underestimating differences between real-time and retrospective data. This later point is a limitation often cited by researchers in this area (Carney et al., 1998, Perrine et al., 1995, Toll et al., 2006). Moreover, neither study examined differences in pattern of alcohol intake across measures.

The aim of this study was to examine differences between alcohol consumption information captured using an app for 21 days with data recorded via traditional, well-validated retrospective measures – namely, 21-day TLFB and the AUQ – in a large healthy sample. We chose a 21-day time frame in order to capture drinking variability; this appears to be particularly important when assessing binge patterns of alcohol intake (Courtney & Polich, 2009). We hypothesised that, relative to retrospective reports, indices related to alcohol intake and pattern of consumption would be greater when recorded via CNLab-A. Further, we expected app data to better accord with Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) apparent per capita alcohol consumption.

Section snippets

Participants

The present study consists of data from 671 participants (M age 23.12, SD = 7.24, range: 16–56, 70% female) that form a subset of an ongoing project – entitled CheckMyControl – investigating the relationship between alcohol use and various social and cognitive factors in the healthy population (see Fig. 1). Participants were recruited via adverts posted in and around the University of Melbourne, researcher networks, and social media posts. The University of Melbourne Human Ethics Committee

Sample demographics

At the time of testing, 39.9% of the sample was aged under 20, 46.2% was aged 20 to 29, and 13.9% was aged 30 or over. Participants had completed, on average, 14.80 years of education (SD = 2.31). Their mean AUDIT and AUQ binge scores were 7.97 (SD = 5.49) and 20.09 (SD = 19.74) respectively. Alcohol and other drug use characteristics are presented in Table 1.

App compliance and adherence

On average, participants used CNLab-A 20.27 (SD = 1.88) days out of 21. As data submission was either event- or notification-contingent, there was

Discussion

This study investigated differences between alcohol intake and pattern of consumption information collected via a smartphone app with data gathered using traditional, well-validated, retrospective measures in a large healthy sample. We hypothesised that, relative to both a 21-day TLFB and the AUQ, indices related to quantity of intake and pattern of consumption would be greater when recorded via the 21-day CNLab-A app. Results revealed participants recorded drinking on a significantly greater

Role of funding source

This research was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council grant (1050766), and an Australian Research Council fellowship (FT110100088). The funding bodies had no role in the study design, collection, analysis or interpretation of data, writing the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

Contributors

AP and RH designed the study. JP and AP developed the smartphone application. LB and RS programmed electronic protocols and built the database. AP collected data and conducted the statistical analysis. Both AP and RH contributed to the writing and editing of this article. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Conflict of interest

No conflict declared.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Jiajie Li and Jemie Effendy who assisted with upgrades to the smartphone application.

References (44)

  • K.E. Courtney et al.

    Binge drinking in young adults: Data, definitions, and determinants

    Psychological Bulletin

    (2009)
  • D.A. Dawson

    Methodological issues in measuring alcohol use

    Alcohol Research and Health

    (2003)
  • F.K. Del Boca et al.

    The validity of self-reports of alcohol consumption: State of the science and challenges for research

    Addiction

    (2003)
  • F.K. Del Boca et al.

    Up close and personal: Temporal variability in the drinking of individual college students during their first year

    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

    (2004)
  • P.L. Dulin et al.

    Comparisons of alcohol consumption by timeline follow back vs. smartphone-based daily interviews

    Addiction Research & Theory

    (2017)
  • O. Ekholm

    Influence of the recall period on self-reported alcohol intake

    European Journal of Clinical Nutrition

    (2004)
  • G.I.J. Feunekes et al.

    Alcohol intake assessment: The sober facts

    American Journal of Epidemiology

    (1999)
  • M.S. Goldman et al.

    How many versus how much: 52 weeks of alcohol consumption in emerging adults

    Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

    (2011)
  • W.C. Kerr et al.

    Understanding standard drinks and drinking guidelines

    Drug and Alcohol Review

    (2012)
  • E. Kuntsche et al.

    Using personal cell phones for ecological momentary assessment: An overview of current developments

    European Psychologist

    (2013)
  • K. Kypri et al.

    Episode-centred analysis of drinking to intoxication in university students

    Alcohol and Alcoholism

    (2005)
  • R.F. Leeman et al.

    Ethanol consumption: How should we measure it? Achieving consilience between human and animal phenotypes

    Addiction Biology

    (2010)
  • Cited by (26)

    • Momentary versus retrospective reports of alcohol or cannabis use, sexual activity, and their co-occurrence

      2021, Addictive Behaviors
      Citation Excerpt :

      Potentially explaining this, we asked participants to retrospectively report number of days rather than the more specific assessment (i.e., number of drinks per day) used in other studies (Monk et al., 2015; Patrick & Lee, 2010). An alternative explanation is that recall biases were systematically underestimated because participants were asked to retrospectively report their substance use behavior for the same period that they provided momentary data (Poulton, Pan, Bruns, Sinnott, & Hester, 2018); future work could address this concern by using the timeline follow-back procedure (TLFB; Sobell & Sobell, 1992). We also found that alcohol- and cannabis-involved sexual activity tended to be overreported on the retrospective survey.

    • Understanding the effectiveness of advertisements about the long-term harms of alcohol and low-risk drinking guidelines: A mediation analysis

      2021, Social Science and Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Another limitation is our reliance on self-report measures of alcohol consumption. In future studies, more accurate measurement of consumption using, for example, ecological momentary assessment methods, could provide greater sensitivity for detecting even small changes in consumption patterns (Poulton et al., 2018). In analyses testing for interactions by risky drinking status, we defined low-risk and high-risk drinkers using past week consumption instead of average past 12-month consumption.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text