Model 1: Logistic regression taking the dichotomous alcohol use disorder scale score (low vs. high risk) as the dependent variable and the sociodemographic characteristics as independent variables. | |||||
 | OR | p-value | Confidence interval | ||
Lower Bound | Lower Bound | ||||
Gender (females vs malesa) | 0.431 | < 0.001 | 0.308 | 0.605 | |
Divorced vs singlea | 6.723 | 0.018 | 1.379 | 32.784 | |
Number of kids | 0.656 | < 0.001 | 0.526 | 0.819 | |
Secondary education level vs illiteratea | 0.272 | 0.083 | 0.062 | 1.185 | |
University education level vs illiteratea | 0.204 | 0.030 | 0.048 | 0.860 | |
Variables entered: Gender, Marital status, number of kids, education level | |||||
Model 2: Logistic regression taking the dichotomous alcohol use disorder scale score (low vs. high risk) as the dependent variable. | |||||
Gender (females vs malesa) | 0.460 | < 0.001 | 0.305 | 0.694 | |
Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) | 1.030 | 0.004 | 1.009 | 1.051 | |
Depression score (HAM-D) | 1.076 | < 0.001 | 1.050 | 1.103 | |
Emotional management | 0.962 | 0.005 | 0.937 | 0.988 | |
Suicidal ideation score | 1.253 | 0.027 | 1.026 | 1.531 | |
Number of kids | 0.863 | 0.037 | 0.752 | 0.991 | |
Variables entered: Gender, Marital status, number of kids, education level, TAS_20, HAMD score, HAMA score, PSC score, Liebowitz score, Emotional awareness score, Emotional management score, Social emotional awareness score, Relationship management score, MBI - Emotional exhaustion, MBI - Personal accomplishment, MBI - Depersonalization, Suicidal ideation score. | |||||
Model 3: Linear regression taking the continuous AUDIT score as the dependent variable and all the scales as independent variables. | |||||
 | Unstandardized Beta | Standardized Beta | p-value | Confidence interval | |
Lower Bound | Upper Bound | ||||
Depression score (HAM-D) | 0.282 | 0.354 | < 0.001 | 0.220 | 0.344 |
Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20) | 0.146 | 0.189 | < 0.001 | 0.093 | 0.200 |
Suicidal ideation score | 0.855 | 0.134 | < 0.001 | 0.385 | 1.325 |
Emotional management | −0.079 | −0.078 | 0.030 | −0.150 | −0.008 |
Gender (females vs malesa) | −2.647 | −0.160 | < 0.001 | −3.771 | −1.523 |
Secondary education vs illiteratea | −2.476 | −0.103 | 0.012 | −4.415 | −0.538 |
University education vs illiteratea | − 2.579 | −0.148 | < 0.001 | −4.024 | − 1.134 |
Intermediate vs lowa SES | 1.167 | 0.067 | 0.050 | 0.001 | 2.333 |
Variables entered: Age, Gender, SES, education level, TAS_20, HAMD score, HAMA score, PSC score, Liebowitz score, Emotional awareness score, Emotional management score, Social emotional awareness score, Relationship management score, MBI - Emotional exhaustion, MBI - Personal accomplishment, MBI - Depersonalization, Suicidal ideation score. aSES = socioeconomic status (Reference = low socioeconomic status). | |||||
Model 4: Linear regression taking the continuous AUDIT score as the dependent variable and four factors obtained in the factor analysis as independent variables. | |||||
Mental Wellbeing (Factor 1) | −0.817 | −0.099 | 0.008 | −1.417 | −0.217 |
Psychological distress (Factor 2) | 1.107 | 0.136 | < 0.001 | 0.496 | 1.719 |
Mood/affective dysfunction (Factor 3) | 3.330 | 0.398 | < 0.001 | 2.672 | 3.989 |
Gender (females vs malesa) | −2.613 | −0.158 | < 0.001 | −3.764 | −1.462 |
Secondary education vs illiteratea | −2.505 | −0.105 | 0.014 | −4.507 | −0.503 |
University education vs illiteratea | −2.678 | −0.153 | < 0.001 | −4.165 | −1.190 |
Factor 1 = mental wellbeing (i.e. high emotional intelligence and low emotional work fatigue; Factor 2 = psychological distress (i.e. high physical and mental work fatigue, high stress and high alexithymia; Factor 3 = mood/affective dysfunction (i.e. high suicidal ideation, high depression and high anxiety; Factor 4 = social dysfunction (i.e. low self-esteem and high social phobia). Variables entered in the model: Factor 1, Factor 2, Factor 3, factor 4, Age, Gender, SES, education level. | |||||
Model 5: Linear regression taking the continuous AUDIT score as the dependent variable and the three clusters as independent variables. | |||||
People with psychological difficulties (Cluster 1) | 5.547 | 0.325 | < 0.001 | 4.430 | 6.663 |
People in distress (Cluster 3) | 7.455 | 0.323 | < 0.001 | 5.945 | 8.965 |
Gender (Malea vs. Female) | −3.011 | −0.184 | < 0.001 | −4.036 | −1.985 |
Secondary education vs illiteratea | −2.461 | −0.104 | 0.008 | − 4.265 | −.657 |
University education vs illiteratea | −3.045 | −0.175 | < 0.001 | −4.392 | −1.698 |
Divorced vs. singlea | 5.047 | 0.118 | < 0.001 | 2.397 | 7.698 |
Widowed vs. singlea | 4.962 | 0.091 | 0.004 | 1.545 | 8.379 |
Variables entered in the model: cluster 1, cluster 2, cluster 3, Age, Gender, SES, education level Cluster 1 = People with psychological difficulties (low self-esteem, high social phobia, high alexithymia, high physical and mental work fatigue and high stress, low emotional intelligence and high emotional work fatigue); cluster 2 = People with high wellbeing (high emotional intelligence and low emotional work fatigue, with low suicidal ideation, low depression and anxiety, high self-esteem and low social phobia); cluster 3 = People in distress (High suicidal ideation, high depression and anxiety, with low self-esteem & high social phobia). | |||||
aReference group |