Alcohol subjective responses in heavy drinkers: Measuring acute effects in the natural environment versus the controlled laboratory setting

Background For decades, laboratory alcohol challenges have been the “gold standard” for measuring individual differences in alcohol's subjective effects. However, these approaches are expensive and labor‐intensive, making them impractical for large‐scale use. This study examined the reliability...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Alcohol, clinical & experimental research clinical & experimental research, 2021-06, Vol.45 (6), p.1287-1297
Hauptverfasser: Fridberg, Daniel J., Cao, Dingcai, King, Andrea C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1297
container_issue 6
container_start_page 1287
container_title Alcohol, clinical & experimental research
container_volume 45
creator Fridberg, Daniel J.
Cao, Dingcai
King, Andrea C.
description Background For decades, laboratory alcohol challenges have been the “gold standard” for measuring individual differences in alcohol's subjective effects. However, these approaches are expensive and labor‐intensive, making them impractical for large‐scale use. This study examined the reliability and validity of a new high‐resolution EMA (HR‐EMA) ambulatory approach to assessing alcohol use and subjective responses in drinkers’ natural environments. Methods Participants were 83 young adult heavy social drinkers (58% male; mean ± SD age = 25.4 ± 2.6 years) who completed up to two smartphone‐based, 3‐h HR‐EMA assessments of alcohol use and related subjective responses in their typical drinking environments. Reported alcohol consumption during the HR‐EMA periods was used to calculate estimated blood alcohol concentration (eBAC). Subjective effects were measured using the Brief Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale (B‐BAES) and Drug Effects Questionnaire (DEQ). All participants also completed identical measures during a separate, 4 to 5‐h laboratory session in which they received a 0.8 g/kg alcohol challenge. Results Most natural environment drinking episodes (87%) met or exceeded the threshold for binge drinking (final mean eBAC = 0.12 g/dl). Associations between reported alcohol use and subjective responses on the B‐BAES and DEQ were strongest earlier in the drinking events, with fair reliability of reported subjective effects across two HR‐EMA episodes (intraclass correlation [ICC] range = 0.46−0.49). There was fair‐to‐good correspondence between HR‐EMA‐ and laboratory‐derived subjective responses (ICC range = 0.49−0.74), even after accounting for differences in alcohol consumption and drinking context. Reported stimulating and rewarding alcohol effects were higher in the ambulatory than laboratory setting, and vice versa for sedating effects. Conclusions This study supports the reliability and validity of smartphone‐based HR‐EMA to measure alcohol use and subjective responses in heavy drinkers’ natural environments. These findings lend support to the use of ambulatory HR‐EMA as a measure of alcohol subjective responses in risky drinkers when a laboratory protocol is not practical, feasible, or safe. This within‐subjects study was the first to compare laboratory‐derived alcohol subjective responses with identical responses recorded in heavy drinkers’ natural environments via smartphone‐based high‐resolution ecological momentary assessment (HR‐EMA). Results supported
doi_str_mv 10.1111/acer.14616
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_webof</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_webofscience_primary_000645646300001</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2514607213</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4486-d8cbd7806f4fba8cb083fc96624761b0e3fc751e5b5ebc55a10cb0aac74c24ad3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNks2KFDEUhQtRnHZ04wNIwI0oNSZVqaTGhdAU4w-MCKLrkErdmk5bnbT5Keln8KW909026kLMJrnkO4cTToriMaMXDNdLbSBcMC6YuFMsWFPTklZS3i0WlPGmFJS2Z8WDGNeUUt4Kcb84q-tW8PpSLIofy8n4lZ9IzP0aTLIzkABx612ESKwjK9DzjgzBuq8Q4ivyAXTMON0QbXICAuOIsj2aVkCcTjnoiYCbbfBuAy6RGYU57q-Ndyn4aYKBTLr3QScfdiRCSuj4sLg36inCo-N-Xnx5c_W5e1def3z7vltel4Zj_nJoTT_IloqRj73Ggbb1aC6FqLgUrKeAk2wYNH0DvWkazSgyWhvJTcX1UJ8Xrw--29xvYDCYESOrbbAbHXbKa6v-vHF2pW78rNqq4ZK3aPDsaBD8twwxqY2NBqZJO_A5qqrBNqisWI3o07_Qtc_B4fPU3kxKyiRSzw-UCT7GAOMpDKPqtmN127Had4zwk9_jn9BfpSLw4gB8h96P0VhwBk4Y_gLBG8FFjSfKkG7_n-5s0sl61_nsEkrZUWon2P0js1p2V58O6X8CwsnXYQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2547477017</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Alcohol subjective responses in heavy drinkers: Measuring acute effects in the natural environment versus the controlled laboratory setting</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021&lt;img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /&gt;</source><source>Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021&lt;img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" /&gt;</source><creator>Fridberg, Daniel J. ; Cao, Dingcai ; King, Andrea C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Fridberg, Daniel J. ; Cao, Dingcai ; King, Andrea C.</creatorcontrib><description>Background For decades, laboratory alcohol challenges have been the “gold standard” for measuring individual differences in alcohol's subjective effects. However, these approaches are expensive and labor‐intensive, making them impractical for large‐scale use. This study examined the reliability and validity of a new high‐resolution EMA (HR‐EMA) ambulatory approach to assessing alcohol use and subjective responses in drinkers’ natural environments. Methods Participants were 83 young adult heavy social drinkers (58% male; mean ± SD age = 25.4 ± 2.6 years) who completed up to two smartphone‐based, 3‐h HR‐EMA assessments of alcohol use and related subjective responses in their typical drinking environments. Reported alcohol consumption during the HR‐EMA periods was used to calculate estimated blood alcohol concentration (eBAC). Subjective effects were measured using the Brief Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale (B‐BAES) and Drug Effects Questionnaire (DEQ). All participants also completed identical measures during a separate, 4 to 5‐h laboratory session in which they received a 0.8 g/kg alcohol challenge. Results Most natural environment drinking episodes (87%) met or exceeded the threshold for binge drinking (final mean eBAC = 0.12 g/dl). Associations between reported alcohol use and subjective responses on the B‐BAES and DEQ were strongest earlier in the drinking events, with fair reliability of reported subjective effects across two HR‐EMA episodes (intraclass correlation [ICC] range = 0.46−0.49). There was fair‐to‐good correspondence between HR‐EMA‐ and laboratory‐derived subjective responses (ICC range = 0.49−0.74), even after accounting for differences in alcohol consumption and drinking context. Reported stimulating and rewarding alcohol effects were higher in the ambulatory than laboratory setting, and vice versa for sedating effects. Conclusions This study supports the reliability and validity of smartphone‐based HR‐EMA to measure alcohol use and subjective responses in heavy drinkers’ natural environments. These findings lend support to the use of ambulatory HR‐EMA as a measure of alcohol subjective responses in risky drinkers when a laboratory protocol is not practical, feasible, or safe. This within‐subjects study was the first to compare laboratory‐derived alcohol subjective responses with identical responses recorded in heavy drinkers’ natural environments via smartphone‐based high‐resolution ecological momentary assessment (HR‐EMA). Results supported the reliability and validity of the HR‐EMA approach, with fair‐to‐good correspondence of subjective responses across assessment modalities. Real‐world drinking was associated with greater stimulating and rewarding alcohol effects, and lower sedating effects, versus the laboratory. These data highlight the utility of HR‐EMA for measuring drinking‐related outcomes outside of the laboratory.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0145-6008</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1530-0277</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2993-7175</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/acer.14616</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33864396</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>HOBOKEN: Wiley</publisher><subject>Acute effects ; Adult ; Alcohol Drinking - psychology ; Alcohol use ; Alcohol-Related Disorders - psychology ; Alcoholism ; Blood levels ; Brief Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale ; Drinking behavior ; Environment ; Female ; Heavy Drinking ; High‐Resolution Ecological Momentary Assessment ; Humans ; Laboratories ; Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine ; Male ; Mobile Applications ; Natural Environment ; Reproducibility of Results ; Science &amp; Technology ; Smartphones ; Subjective Alcohol Response ; Substance Abuse ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Alcohol, clinical &amp; experimental research, 2021-06, Vol.45 (6), p.1287-1297</ispartof><rights>2021 Research Society on Alcoholism</rights><rights>2021 Research Society on Alcoholism.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>true</woscitedreferencessubscribed><woscitedreferencescount>5</woscitedreferencescount><woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid>wos000645646300001</woscitedreferencesoriginalsourcerecordid><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4486-d8cbd7806f4fba8cb083fc96624761b0e3fc751e5b5ebc55a10cb0aac74c24ad3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4486-d8cbd7806f4fba8cb083fc96624761b0e3fc751e5b5ebc55a10cb0aac74c24ad3</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3451-1418 ; 0000-0001-5943-7109 ; 0000-0002-5529-0960</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Facer.14616$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Facer.14616$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,782,786,887,1419,27931,27932,39264,39265,45581,45582</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33864396$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Fridberg, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cao, Dingcai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Andrea C.</creatorcontrib><title>Alcohol subjective responses in heavy drinkers: Measuring acute effects in the natural environment versus the controlled laboratory setting</title><title>Alcohol, clinical &amp; experimental research</title><addtitle>ALCOHOL CLIN EXP RES</addtitle><addtitle>Alcohol Clin Exp Res</addtitle><description>Background For decades, laboratory alcohol challenges have been the “gold standard” for measuring individual differences in alcohol's subjective effects. However, these approaches are expensive and labor‐intensive, making them impractical for large‐scale use. This study examined the reliability and validity of a new high‐resolution EMA (HR‐EMA) ambulatory approach to assessing alcohol use and subjective responses in drinkers’ natural environments. Methods Participants were 83 young adult heavy social drinkers (58% male; mean ± SD age = 25.4 ± 2.6 years) who completed up to two smartphone‐based, 3‐h HR‐EMA assessments of alcohol use and related subjective responses in their typical drinking environments. Reported alcohol consumption during the HR‐EMA periods was used to calculate estimated blood alcohol concentration (eBAC). Subjective effects were measured using the Brief Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale (B‐BAES) and Drug Effects Questionnaire (DEQ). All participants also completed identical measures during a separate, 4 to 5‐h laboratory session in which they received a 0.8 g/kg alcohol challenge. Results Most natural environment drinking episodes (87%) met or exceeded the threshold for binge drinking (final mean eBAC = 0.12 g/dl). Associations between reported alcohol use and subjective responses on the B‐BAES and DEQ were strongest earlier in the drinking events, with fair reliability of reported subjective effects across two HR‐EMA episodes (intraclass correlation [ICC] range = 0.46−0.49). There was fair‐to‐good correspondence between HR‐EMA‐ and laboratory‐derived subjective responses (ICC range = 0.49−0.74), even after accounting for differences in alcohol consumption and drinking context. Reported stimulating and rewarding alcohol effects were higher in the ambulatory than laboratory setting, and vice versa for sedating effects. Conclusions This study supports the reliability and validity of smartphone‐based HR‐EMA to measure alcohol use and subjective responses in heavy drinkers’ natural environments. These findings lend support to the use of ambulatory HR‐EMA as a measure of alcohol subjective responses in risky drinkers when a laboratory protocol is not practical, feasible, or safe. This within‐subjects study was the first to compare laboratory‐derived alcohol subjective responses with identical responses recorded in heavy drinkers’ natural environments via smartphone‐based high‐resolution ecological momentary assessment (HR‐EMA). Results supported the reliability and validity of the HR‐EMA approach, with fair‐to‐good correspondence of subjective responses across assessment modalities. Real‐world drinking was associated with greater stimulating and rewarding alcohol effects, and lower sedating effects, versus the laboratory. These data highlight the utility of HR‐EMA for measuring drinking‐related outcomes outside of the laboratory.</description><subject>Acute effects</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Alcohol Drinking - psychology</subject><subject>Alcohol use</subject><subject>Alcohol-Related Disorders - psychology</subject><subject>Alcoholism</subject><subject>Blood levels</subject><subject>Brief Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale</subject><subject>Drinking behavior</subject><subject>Environment</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Heavy Drinking</subject><subject>High‐Resolution Ecological Momentary Assessment</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mobile Applications</subject><subject>Natural Environment</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Science &amp; Technology</subject><subject>Smartphones</subject><subject>Subjective Alcohol Response</subject><subject>Substance Abuse</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0145-6008</issn><issn>1530-0277</issn><issn>2993-7175</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>GIZIO</sourceid><sourceid>HGBXW</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNks2KFDEUhQtRnHZ04wNIwI0oNSZVqaTGhdAU4w-MCKLrkErdmk5bnbT5Keln8KW909026kLMJrnkO4cTToriMaMXDNdLbSBcMC6YuFMsWFPTklZS3i0WlPGmFJS2Z8WDGNeUUt4Kcb84q-tW8PpSLIofy8n4lZ9IzP0aTLIzkABx612ESKwjK9DzjgzBuq8Q4ivyAXTMON0QbXICAuOIsj2aVkCcTjnoiYCbbfBuAy6RGYU57q-Ndyn4aYKBTLr3QScfdiRCSuj4sLg36inCo-N-Xnx5c_W5e1def3z7vltel4Zj_nJoTT_IloqRj73Ggbb1aC6FqLgUrKeAk2wYNH0DvWkazSgyWhvJTcX1UJ8Xrw--29xvYDCYESOrbbAbHXbKa6v-vHF2pW78rNqq4ZK3aPDsaBD8twwxqY2NBqZJO_A5qqrBNqisWI3o07_Qtc_B4fPU3kxKyiRSzw-UCT7GAOMpDKPqtmN127Had4zwk9_jn9BfpSLw4gB8h96P0VhwBk4Y_gLBG8FFjSfKkG7_n-5s0sl61_nsEkrZUWon2P0js1p2V58O6X8CwsnXYQ</recordid><startdate>202106</startdate><enddate>202106</enddate><creator>Fridberg, Daniel J.</creator><creator>Cao, Dingcai</creator><creator>King, Andrea C.</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>17B</scope><scope>BLEPL</scope><scope>DTL</scope><scope>DVR</scope><scope>EGQ</scope><scope>GIZIO</scope><scope>HGBXW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3451-1418</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5943-7109</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5529-0960</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202106</creationdate><title>Alcohol subjective responses in heavy drinkers: Measuring acute effects in the natural environment versus the controlled laboratory setting</title><author>Fridberg, Daniel J. ; Cao, Dingcai ; King, Andrea C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4486-d8cbd7806f4fba8cb083fc96624761b0e3fc751e5b5ebc55a10cb0aac74c24ad3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Acute effects</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Alcohol Drinking - psychology</topic><topic>Alcohol use</topic><topic>Alcohol-Related Disorders - psychology</topic><topic>Alcoholism</topic><topic>Blood levels</topic><topic>Brief Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale</topic><topic>Drinking behavior</topic><topic>Environment</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Heavy Drinking</topic><topic>High‐Resolution Ecological Momentary Assessment</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Life Sciences &amp; Biomedicine</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mobile Applications</topic><topic>Natural Environment</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Science &amp; Technology</topic><topic>Smartphones</topic><topic>Subjective Alcohol Response</topic><topic>Substance Abuse</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Fridberg, Daniel J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cao, Dingcai</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>King, Andrea C.</creatorcontrib><collection>Web of Knowledge</collection><collection>Web of Science Core Collection</collection><collection>Science Citation Index Expanded</collection><collection>Social Sciences Citation Index</collection><collection>Web of Science Primary (SCIE, SSCI &amp; AHCI)</collection><collection>Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021</collection><collection>Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Alcohol, clinical &amp; experimental research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Fridberg, Daniel J.</au><au>Cao, Dingcai</au><au>King, Andrea C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Alcohol subjective responses in heavy drinkers: Measuring acute effects in the natural environment versus the controlled laboratory setting</atitle><jtitle>Alcohol, clinical &amp; experimental research</jtitle><stitle>ALCOHOL CLIN EXP RES</stitle><addtitle>Alcohol Clin Exp Res</addtitle><date>2021-06</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>45</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>1287</spage><epage>1297</epage><pages>1287-1297</pages><issn>0145-6008</issn><eissn>1530-0277</eissn><eissn>2993-7175</eissn><abstract>Background For decades, laboratory alcohol challenges have been the “gold standard” for measuring individual differences in alcohol's subjective effects. However, these approaches are expensive and labor‐intensive, making them impractical for large‐scale use. This study examined the reliability and validity of a new high‐resolution EMA (HR‐EMA) ambulatory approach to assessing alcohol use and subjective responses in drinkers’ natural environments. Methods Participants were 83 young adult heavy social drinkers (58% male; mean ± SD age = 25.4 ± 2.6 years) who completed up to two smartphone‐based, 3‐h HR‐EMA assessments of alcohol use and related subjective responses in their typical drinking environments. Reported alcohol consumption during the HR‐EMA periods was used to calculate estimated blood alcohol concentration (eBAC). Subjective effects were measured using the Brief Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale (B‐BAES) and Drug Effects Questionnaire (DEQ). All participants also completed identical measures during a separate, 4 to 5‐h laboratory session in which they received a 0.8 g/kg alcohol challenge. Results Most natural environment drinking episodes (87%) met or exceeded the threshold for binge drinking (final mean eBAC = 0.12 g/dl). Associations between reported alcohol use and subjective responses on the B‐BAES and DEQ were strongest earlier in the drinking events, with fair reliability of reported subjective effects across two HR‐EMA episodes (intraclass correlation [ICC] range = 0.46−0.49). There was fair‐to‐good correspondence between HR‐EMA‐ and laboratory‐derived subjective responses (ICC range = 0.49−0.74), even after accounting for differences in alcohol consumption and drinking context. Reported stimulating and rewarding alcohol effects were higher in the ambulatory than laboratory setting, and vice versa for sedating effects. Conclusions This study supports the reliability and validity of smartphone‐based HR‐EMA to measure alcohol use and subjective responses in heavy drinkers’ natural environments. These findings lend support to the use of ambulatory HR‐EMA as a measure of alcohol subjective responses in risky drinkers when a laboratory protocol is not practical, feasible, or safe. This within‐subjects study was the first to compare laboratory‐derived alcohol subjective responses with identical responses recorded in heavy drinkers’ natural environments via smartphone‐based high‐resolution ecological momentary assessment (HR‐EMA). Results supported the reliability and validity of the HR‐EMA approach, with fair‐to‐good correspondence of subjective responses across assessment modalities. Real‐world drinking was associated with greater stimulating and rewarding alcohol effects, and lower sedating effects, versus the laboratory. These data highlight the utility of HR‐EMA for measuring drinking‐related outcomes outside of the laboratory.</abstract><cop>HOBOKEN</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><pmid>33864396</pmid><doi>10.1111/acer.14616</doi><tpages>11</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3451-1418</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5943-7109</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5529-0960</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0145-6008
ispartof Alcohol, clinical & experimental research, 2021-06, Vol.45 (6), p.1287-1297
issn 0145-6008
1530-0277
2993-7175
language eng
recordid cdi_webofscience_primary_000645646300001
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; Web of Science - Science Citation Index Expanded - 2021<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" />; Web of Science - Social Sciences Citation Index – 2021<img src="https://exlibris-pub.s3.amazonaws.com/fromwos-v2.jpg" />
subjects Acute effects
Adult
Alcohol Drinking - psychology
Alcohol use
Alcohol-Related Disorders - psychology
Alcoholism
Blood levels
Brief Biphasic Alcohol Effects Scale
Drinking behavior
Environment
Female
Heavy Drinking
High‐Resolution Ecological Momentary Assessment
Humans
Laboratories
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Male
Mobile Applications
Natural Environment
Reproducibility of Results
Science & Technology
Smartphones
Subjective Alcohol Response
Substance Abuse
Young Adult
title Alcohol subjective responses in heavy drinkers: Measuring acute effects in the natural environment versus the controlled laboratory setting
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-04T15%3A25%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_webof&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Alcohol%20subjective%20responses%20in%20heavy%20drinkers:%20Measuring%20acute%20effects%20in%20the%20natural%20environment%20versus%20the%20controlled%20laboratory%20setting&rft.jtitle=Alcohol,%20clinical%20&%20experimental%20research&rft.au=Fridberg,%20Daniel%20J.&rft.date=2021-06&rft.volume=45&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=1287&rft.epage=1297&rft.pages=1287-1297&rft.issn=0145-6008&rft.eissn=1530-0277&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/acer.14616&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_webof%3E2514607213%3C/proquest_webof%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2547477017&rft_id=info:pmid/33864396&rfr_iscdi=true