Ing behaviours predicted child’s alcohol use and intoxication at ages 14 and 17 (eight path coefficients, variety 0.02.16, P 0.001 for all) Maternal drinking predicted only alcohol use (OR = two.six, P 0.01) , no association with paternal drinking Paternal, but not maternal, drinking predicted only excessive drinking ( = 0.16 for older and = 0.17 for younger adolescents, P 0.05) YesAddiction, 111, 204(Continues)Table 1. (Continued)Study Drinking frequency None Both parents Ages 90 combined Alcohol use frequency Ages 16CharacteristicsExposure measureOutcome(s) measureFindings YesPears, 2007 [37]103 families68bIngeborg Rossow et al.Poelen, 2007 [44]Twin households, n =47b Drinking frequency None 3 Both parents Ages 125 Common separate drinking Ages 147, 19YesPoelen, 2009 [45]Twin households, n =48b Drinking frequency None three Both parents Ages 125 Issue separate drinking (CAGE) Ages 19YesTyler, 2006 [38] Binge Past 30 2 drinking (5+) days Mother only Ages 102 Binge drinking (5+)Youth cohort, n =45cAges 146, 16Yes2015 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.Webster, 1989 [39]AUT1 mechanism of action Community Not sample, clear n = 420 familiesVolumeNoneBoth parents Mean age separate 16Alcohol amount per weekMean ages 334 (SD eight.40.0)Grandparents’ alcohol use predicted parents’ alcohol use (path coefficient = 0.22, P 0.05) Only maternal drinking few instances week predicted frequent drinking 7 years (OR = 1.78, P 0.001) later Only paternal drinking a handful of timesweek predicted issue drinking 7 years later (OR = 1.78, P 0.05). This did not differ for boys and girls Mother’s binge drinking predicted binge drinking at ages 146 ( = 0.171, P 0.01), not at ages 168 Father’s drinking (partial r = 015, P = 0.05) and mother’s drinking (partial r = 0.16, P = 0.04) predicted alcohol use in sons, only father’s drinking (partial r = 0.29, P 0.001) predicted alcohol use in daughtersYesSample size may be the PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21323909 number of men and women inside the (multivariate) evaluation. aProportion that was followed-up and completed Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI); bour calculation depending on the figures in the post; cnet sample as proportion of initial gross sample when missing information excluded. TF = time-frame; cat = number of categories; parents comb = measure of parental drinking combined; CAGE = Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilt, Eye-opener; OR = odds ratio; SD = regular deviation.Addiction, 111, 204Table two Assessments of study qualities favourable to causal inference and evaluation of study capacity for causal inference.Study characteristics favourable to causal inferenceAuthor, year, reference No No Acceptable Yes No No No Huge Large Yes No No NoMain concentrate on parentTheory-driven analyses offspring drinking aimed at assessing association causality Identification of crucial confounding components Sample size Relevant period Notes on outcome measureExposure measure gradedAssessment of parental drinking interactionCapacity for causal inference Tiny LittleAlati, 2005 [40] Alati, 2008 [41]No YesAlati, 2014 [42]YesYes No, long ahead of outcome YesLimited data on key measureSomeArmstrong 2013 [29] No No No No No No No Yes YesNoSuggests parenting may Time-varying mediate the association. covariates integrated Analysis not clearly aimed at addressing causality No No Yes No No No NoLittle Little Little Trajectories from ages 186 No LittleBailey, 2006 [30] Burk, 2011 [31]No NoCasswell, 2002 [46]NoOn the smaller sized side Modest Around the smaller side Acceptabl.
