You are here

Article Text

Article menu

This article has a correction. Please see:

XML
Public health
Original research
Alcohol consumption of UK members of parliament: cross-sectional survey
  1. Rahul Rao1,
  2. Ioannis Bakolis2,
  3. Jayati Das-Munshi3,
  4. Daniel Poulter4,
  5. Nicole Votruba5,
  6. Graham Thornicroft6
  1. 1 Old Age Psychiatry, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, London, UK
  2. 2 King’s College London, London, UK
  3. 3 Section of Epidemiology, Department of Health Service & Population Research, King’s College London, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
  4. 4 South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  5. 5 Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
  6. 6 Health Service and Population Research, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Rahul Rao; tony.rao{at}kcl.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives This study examined the prevalence of risky drinking by members of parliament (MPs), as well as the relationship between risky drinking and age, years spent as an MP, working outside parliament, awareness of the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service, and probable mental ill health.

Design A survey questionnaire assessed alcohol consumption using the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT). Risky drinking was identified by combining categories of increasing (hazardous), higher (harmful) and probable dependent drinking for those with a total score of 8 or more. Comparator groups from the 2014 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) were used as controls.

Setting UK House of Commons.

Participants 650 MPs.

Results Compared with all 650 MPs, participants (n=146) were more likely to be female (p<0.05) or have an educational qualification (p<0.05). Weighted proportions on AUDIT items were higher than the APMS comparator group for participants who had a drink four or more times a week, 10 or more drinks on a typical drinking day, six or more drinks in one occasion, or felt guilty because of drinking (p<0.01). Weighted percentages for risky drinking were higher in MPs compared with the whole English population (p<0.05), but similar when compared with socioeconomic comparator groups. The odds of risky drinking were 2.74 times greater for MPs who had an additional work role outside parliament compared with those who did not (95% CI 0.98 to 7.65) and 2.4 times greater for MPs with probable mental ill health compared with those with no evidence of probable mental ill health (95% CI 0.78 to 7.43).

Conclusions A low level of awareness of the Parliamentary Health and Wellbeing Service has implications for improving the detection of risky drinking and improving access to this service by MPs. Possible increased likelihood of risky drinking in MPs who also had an additional work role outside Parliament and among those with probable mental ill health requires further exploration.

  • alcohol consumption
  • UK
  • policy making
  • politicians
  • Members of Parliament (MPs)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034929

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Supplementary materials

    Footnotes

    • Twitter @kentjrchess, @Jaydasmunshi, @NicoleVotruba

    • Contributors DP and GT conceived the original idea for the study, which was then discussed with NV and with RR coordinated the study. All authors contributed to the design of the study. RR and JD-M conducted the literature review. DP and NV collected the data. IB conducted the design and analysis of the data. JD-M supported the design of the data analysis and contributed throughout the design and writing up of the study. RR and IB led the writing of the manuscript, and all authors contributed and critically revised it. All authors have given their approval for the publication of this manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work to ensure that the questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests NV acknowledges funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South London at King’s College London NHS Foundation Trust. GT, IB are supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South London at King’s College London NHS Foundation Trust. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. GT acknowledges financial support from the Department of Health via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre and Dementia Unit awarded to South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust in partnership with King’s College London and King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. GT is supported by the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) Emerald project. GT also receives support from the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01MH100470 (Cobalt study). GT is also supported by the UK Medical Research Council in relation to the Emilia (MR/S001255/1) and Indigo Partnership (MR/R023697/1) awards. IB is supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research. JD-M has a Clinician Scientist Fellowship, funded by the Health Foundation working with the Academy of Medical Sciences. DP is currently MP of the 57th UK Parliament and was member of the 56th UK Parliament; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

    • Patient consent for publication Not required.

    • Ethics approval Ethics approval for the study was obtained in September 2016 from King’s College London Ethics Committee (reference number: HR-16/17-3118).

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article. No additional data available. The APMS 2014 can be accessed at: https://eur03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdigital.nhs.uk%2Fdata-and-information%2Fpublications%2Fstatistical%2Fadult-psychiatric-morbidity-survey%2Fadult-psychiatric-morbidity-survey-survey-of-mental-health-and-wellbeing-england-2014&amp;data=01%7C01%7Ctony.rao%40kcl.ac.uk%7C168c4b5672524699e2f808d767993f44%7C8370cf1416f34c16b83c724071654356%7C0&amp;sdata=4u9%2FGOnocJRRxF6dQJvvjs9N2qMq8QdhUI2i29wDfUw%3D&amp;reserved=0. Due to the sensibility of the data, and in order to ensure full anonymity, confidentiality and data protection for the participants, the full survey data cannot be made accessible to the public.

    Linked Articles