Next Article in Journal
Housing and Support for People with Disability: Perspectives of Motor Accident, Disability and Injury Insurers across Australia and New Zealand
Previous Article in Journal
A Simple Index of Lake Ecosystem Health Based on Species-Area Models of Macrobenthos
 
 
Correction

Correction: Gilmore et al. Association between Nightlife Goers’ Likelihood of an Alcohol Use Disorder and Their Preferred Bar’s Closing Time: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study in Perth, Australia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13040

1
National Drug Research Institute and enAble Institute, Faculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA 6845, Australia
2
School of Public Health, Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou 350108, China
3
Institute for Mental Health Policy Research, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON M5S 2S1, Canada
4
School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia
5
Centre for Drug Use, Addictive and Anti-Social Behaviour Research, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3220, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(15), 9684; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19159684
Received: 9 June 2022 / Accepted: 20 June 2022 / Published: 5 August 2022

Error in Table

In the original publication [1], there were mistakes in Table 1 and Table 2 as published. We had made a coding error with the independent variable “Was it a typical night out?”. The corrected Table 1 and Table 2 appear below.

Text Correction

There was an error in the original publication [1]. We had made a coding error with the independent variable “Was it a typical night out?”, thereby affecting some of the text. Corrections have been made to the following sections:
Section 3, Paragraph 1:
Half reported that it was not a typical night out for them.
Section 3, Paragraph 2:
For male participants, the preference for late-closing bars was associated with the following: the youngest age group (age 18–21); clerical occupations (compared to ‘other’); and the survey occurring on Friday night.
Section 4, Paragraph 5:
Furthermore, half of participants were not on a typical night out for them so may have been drinking at venues they did not typically frequent and/or may have gone home earlier or stayed out later than usual.
The authors apologise for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.

Reference

  1. Gilmore, W.; Symons, M.; Liang, W.; Graham, K.; Kypri, K.; Miller, P.; Chikritzhs, T. Association between Nightlife Goers’ Likelihood of an Alcohol Use Disorder and Their Preferred Bar’s Closing Time: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study in Perth, Australia. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 13040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table 1. Gender-specific descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses for participant and survey characteristics by participants’ preferred bar’s closing time.
Table 1. Gender-specific descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses for participant and survey characteristics by participants’ preferred bar’s closing time.
Variables ±Male Female
LateStandard LateStandard
Participant characteristicsn%n% n%n%
AUDIT-C χ2(2) = 1.2,
p = 0.54
χ2(2) = 10.2,
p = 0.01
1–4 (low risk)2716271923272946
5–7 (hazardous)6739584148561930
8–12 (active AUD)7745553914161524
Total1711001401008510063100
Age χ2(3) = 7.0,
p = 0.07
χ2(2) = 8.2,
p = 0.04
18–214618241239311922
22–257329482441322529
26–295622592916132428
≥307630703531241821
Total25110020110012710086100
Occupation χ2(4) = 8.4,
p = 0.08
χ2(4) = 3.9,
p = 0.42
Manager/professional8334773929242833
Technician/trade/labourer883665338767
Community/personal service18715825201214
Clerical/administrative/sales24107428232226
Other3113331733271720
Total24410019710012310085100
Pre-drinking χ2(1) = 3.8,
p = 0.05
χ2(1) = 8.8,
p < 0.01
No110441085352415362
Yes14056954775593338
Total25010020310012710086100
Energy drink use χ2(1) = 8.3,
p < 0.01
χ2(1) = 1.4,
p = 0.24
No2058218591110877992
Yes4618189171378
Total25110020310012710086100
Was it a typical night out? χ2(2) = 2.0,
p = 0.37
χ2(2) = 2.9,
p = 0.24
No, usually smaller4433322520251627
No, usually bigger2821272113161627
Yes6246685446582746
Total1341001271007910059100
Drinking session duration (hours)nMean (SD)nMean (SD) nMean (SD)nMean (SD)
2464.8 (2.7)1985.0 (2.5)t (442) = 0.9,
p = 0.31
1264.5 (2.3)864.4 (2.0)t(210) = −0.3,
p = 0.48
Survey characteristicsn%n% n%n%
Day χ2(2) = 21.0,
p < 0.001
χ2(2) = 10.1,
p = 0.01
Friday10843482452411922
Saturday119471185864506272
Sunday2410371811956
Total25110020310012710086100
Time χ2(1) = 10.9,
p = 0.001
χ2(1) = 3.6,
p = 0.06
Before midnight127511346660475260
Midnight and after12449693467533440
Total25110020310012710086100
± Small or big night out are colloquialisms regarding level of perceived intoxication.
Table 2. Results from two gender-specific logistic regression models: Association between AUDIT-C category and participants’ preferred bar’s closing time (late = 1; standard = 0) adjusting for survey and participant characteristics ±.
Table 2. Results from two gender-specific logistic regression models: Association between AUDIT-C category and participants’ preferred bar’s closing time (late = 1; standard = 0) adjusting for survey and participant characteristics ±.
Variables ±Male (n = 306)Female (n = 148)
Participant characteristicsnORLCIUCIp-ValuenORLCIUCIp-Value
AUDIT-C
1–4 (low risk) [Ref]54 52
5–7 (hazardous)1211.060.542.090.87673.481.478.23<0.01
8–12 (active AUD)1311.310.662.620.44291.230.433.520.70
Age
18–21572.821.266.330.01390.960.332.780.94
22–25841.480.782.810.23510.730.262.060.55
26–29761.090.572.080.80250.130.040.49<0.01
≥30 [Ref]89 33
Occupation
Manager/professional1002.110.964.650.07
Technician/trade/labourer1152.020.964.250.06
Community/personal service201.220.413.620.72
Clerical/administrative/sales213.461.0910.940.03
Other [Ref]50
Survey characteristics
Day
Friday1111.921.143.220.01533.221.437.26<0.01
Saturday [Ref]163 86
Sunday320.580.261.280.1892.990.6015.040.18
Male model: Hosmer and Lemeshow χ2(8) = 10.3, p = 0.25. Female model: Hosmer and Lemeshow χ2(7) = 1.1, p = 0.99. OR: Odds ratio. L/UCI: 95% lower/upper confidence interval. [Ref]: Reference group. ± Time of survey, duration of drinking session, pre-drinking, energy drink use and whether it was a typical night out were non-contributing variables in both models and removed in the backward stepwise selection approach. Occupation was a non-contributing variable in the female model and was removed in the backward stepwise selection approach.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Back to TopTop