malika kong - excels in quality education and research

MalikaKONGPharmacist,MPH

Pharmacist,MPHandisalecturerinprivateuniversityinCambodiaand

executiveinhealthcarecompanyinCambodia.Strongmotivationpeople

andgoodleadershipinfieldofworkandliving.Excellenceincoaching,

communicating,andworkingwithdifferencepeople.

LecturerInternationalUniversity

Teachingclinicalbiologytoyear4thpharmacystudents•

Coachingandmotivatestudents•

Controlclass•

DirectorLaGrandePharmacy

Managementpharmacystock•

Sourcingproductandmedicine•

Arrangepharmaciststaffsschedule•

Coachingandmotivateteamwork•

Trainingpharmaciststudents•

Setyearplanandmarketingplan•

Setincentive•

Sale Lead and ExecutiveofOperationExcellenceNHealth(Cambodia)Co,Ltd,BDMS

Checkqualityforalldepartments•

Consultationforimprovingthequalityandsolvetheproblem•

InternalAuditor•

Pricing ,Marketing and Sorcing•

Dataanalysis•

YearPlanning•

PharmacistNHealth(Cambodia)Co,Ltd,BDMS

SetupSaveDrugpharmacystore•

Sourcingsuppliers•

Regulateaffairwithsuppliersandministryofhealth•

UnderstandtheLawandadvicetosuppliersandteamwork•

ExecutiveRegulatoryAffairsDKSH(Cambodia)Co.,Ltd

Cosmetic,food,andexternaluseregistrationatMinistryofHealth•

Cosmetic,food,andexternaluseforimportandadvertisementlicense•

Profile

Experience

Jan2018-

present

Apr2018-

present

Nov2017-

present

2016-

2016

2014-

2016

PersonalInfo

Address

#99Eo,St.199,SangkatToul

SvaypreyII,

KhanChomkamon,PhnomPenh,

Cambodia

Phone

(+855)16238893

E-mail

[email protected]

Dateofbirth

09Sep1989

Citizenship

Cambodian

Facebook

https://web.facebook.com/malikakong

Skills

Leadership

Goodmotivation,teamwork

Communication

Verygood

Lawandregulationrelated

pharmaceutical

Verygood

mailto:[email protected]

https://web.facebook.com/malikakong

approvalfromMinistryofHealth

Dealtheproblemofsuppliers,companyandMinistryofHealth•

UnderstandtheLawandadvicetosuppliersorteamwork•

Doingdailyandmonthlyreport•

GPA4&ExcellenceDefendingThesisinmasterdegreeofpublichealth,

KhonKaenUniversity,Thailand

GetfullScholarshipformasterdegreeinPublicHealth,KhonKaen

University,Thailand

Getawardofoutstandingstudentoftheyear2010,2011,2012,2013,and

2014ofbachelorofpharmacyfromInternationalUniversity,Cambodia

GetanAwardoffullscholarshipofbachelordegreeofEnglishfrom

UniversityofCambodia,Cambodia

PublicHealth,Masterdegree,KhonKaenUniversity,

Thailand

Pharmacy,Bachelordegree,InternationalUniversity,

Cambodia

English,Bachelordegree,UniversityofCambodia,

Cambodia

Thesis:ofMPHonTopic“SocioculturalDeterminantsandAlcoholUse

DisorderamongWorkingAgePopulationinCambodia”inKhonKaen

University.

Internationalpresentation:ConferenceonHealthChallengesin

SustainableDevelopmentGoalsentitled“SocioculturalDeterminantsand

AlcoholUseDisorderamongWorkingAgePopulationinCambodia”inKhon

KaenUniversity.

ISO14971:2007RiskManagementbyDKSH

WorkshoponToothpasteIndustrialManagementandQualityControlby

InternationalUniversity

SkillofPharmacyManagementbyInternationalUniversity

CISCOnetworkforsoftwareandhardwareprogrambyPannasastra

Universityof

CompletedIntensiveEnglishProgramAcademicattheUniversityof

Cambodia

Awards

2017

2016

2007

Education

2016-

2017

2009-

2015

2007-

2011

Research/InternationalPresentation

2017

2017

Training/Course

2015

2014

2011

2009

2008

Software

STATA

Excellence

MicrosoftOffice,Outlook

Advanced

Snagit

Advanced

SAP

Verygood

Endnote,Internet

Advanced

Languages

Cambodian-Mothertounge

Proficient

English-Bachelordegree

Verygood

Thai-Diplomadegree

Good

CompletedIntensiveEnglishAcademicProgramatPannasastraUniversity

ofCambodia

NationalBloodTransfusionCenterasvolunteerduring“GiveBlood,Give

Love”

StandardPatientinNationalPharmacyExitExam2013and2014

GrouppharmacystudentleaderinStudyTourtoThailandbyInternational

University

UniversityofCambodiaasanExamfacilitatorin‘SomdechHunSen’

NationalScholarship

PannasastraUniversityofCambodiaasatrainer

Asst. Professor Sok Vanna, Vice Dean International University

Tel: (855) 12984 166•

Email: [email protected]•

2008

Volunteer

Feb2014

2014

Aug2013

2010

Apr2009

References

tel:2066642041920927920090920

tel:2066642041920927920090920

International Conference on

Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain (June 15-16, 2016 Philadelphia,

USA)

Fibromyalgia 2016 June 15-16, 2016

Title: Sociocultural Determinants and Alcohol Use Disorder among Working Population in

Cambodia.

Authors: Kong Malika1, Wongsa Laohasiriwong

2, Paricah Nippanon

3, Teerasak Phajan

4

1M.P.H.student, Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.

2 Faculty of Public Health,

Research and Training Center for Enhancing Quality of Life of Working Age People. Khon Kaen University,

Thailand.3

Faculty of Public Health, Khon Kaen University, Thailand.4

Sirindhorn College of Public Health,

Khon Kaen University, Thailand

Introduction: There have been increasing trends of alcohol consumption in Cambodia. However, it effect on

consumers seldom been studied and reported.

Objective: To determine association between sociocultural and alcohol use disorder among working age

population in Phnom Penh city, Cambodia. 323 participants in 2017

Methodology: This cross sectional study was conducted in Phnom Penh municipal city, Cambodia in 2017.

Multi stage random sampling was used to select 323 working age people to response to structured

questionnaire. The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) of the World Health Organization was

used to identify the alcohol use disorder status of the sample. Multiple logistic regression was used to

determine the association.

Result: Most of the participants were male 75.85% with the average age was 31.8 years old (SD ± 10.2). The

prevalence of alcohol use disorder was 53.56% which was included hazardous drinking (8-15 scores) 34.67%,

harmful drinking (16-19scores) 11.76%, and problem alcohol dependence (+20scores) 7.12%. The factors

associated to alcohol use disorder were male (Adjusted OR: 5.46, 95%CI: 2.7-11.03), overweight (Adjusted

OR: 1.7, 95%CI: 1.04-3.05), employed (Adjusted OR: 2.83, 95%CI: 1.42-5.65), current smoker (Adjusted OR:

4.5, 95%CI: 1.88-10.76), those had family drink alcohol (Adjusted OR: 4.28, 95%CI: 2.24-8.16), those had

close friend drink alcohol (Adjusted OR: 4.43, 95%CI: 1.22-16.13), those currently take medicine (Adjusted

OR: 3.56, 95%CI: 1.28-9.93), and those had chronic health problem (Adjusted OR: 2.57, 95%CI: 1.21-5.44),

which statistic were significantly p value <0.05.

Conclusion: The prevalence of alcohol use disorder was high; also, male, overweight, employed, current

smoking, family drink alcohol, friend drink alcohol, currently take medicine, and chronic health problem were

associated with alcohol use disorder in Cambodia.

Keywords: Alcohol use disorder, Hazardous drinking, Working Age Population, Sociocultural

Abbreviations: AUDIT: Alcohol use disorders identification test; BMI: Body mass index;

WHO: World Health Organization; HD: Hazardous drinking.



USA)


BACKGROUND

Alcohol is the third risk factor for many death

and disability worldwide (WHO, 2009). A study in

2010 indicated that 2.5 million people globally in

2004 died by the alcohol consumption which is

included 32 000 people between of 15 to 29 years

old. In 2004 worldwide, 3.8% of death and 45% of

disability are caused by alcohol use. (Alwan, 2010).

There are more than 200 diseases and injury

conditions which is caused by alcohol consumption

(WHO, 2014). However, alcohol stay connected to

people’s living since long time ago and provide

people of relax feeling and more good

communication in the social. People consume more

alcohol, it will be alcohol poisoning and lead to

abuse. Then that person will become an alcoholic

person. Therefore, the global information system on

alcohol and health plays as important role to assess

and control the situation of alcohol consumption,

harmful of alcohol consumption, and policies in

alcohol use for many countries. As the actual

information has been showed that 3.3 million of

people die every year by drinking alcohol, and 60

vary of diseases are caused by alcohol consumption.

Also, it causes many health problems for people who

consume alcohol. 6.2liters of pure alcohol was

consumed by the people aged more than 15 years

old, as the report of worldwide about total alcohol

consumption with 25% of total consumption is

without any record. (WHO, 2017). The more people

drink alcohol , the more challenge of public health as

a result of much increase of prevalence of disease in

region of Asia-Pacific.(Jim E. Banta, 2013)

Cambodia is a low income country in Southeast

Asia, with a population of 15,957,223(Factbook,

2017). The number of alcohol drink in Cambodia

increased from 4.6(lite in pure alcohol) in 2003–

2005 to 5.5(lite in pure alcohol) in 2008–2010 in the

general population. Also, the pure alcohol

consumption per capita among drinker in Cambodia

was 14.2 lite; on the other hand, alcohol use

disorders and alcohol dependence in Cambodia were

4.4% and 2.7%, respectively, in 2010 that was higher

than the Western Pacific region average.(Peltzer,

Pengpid, & Tepirou, 2016). The prevalence of

alcohol use disorder in Cambodia was high.

(MaleWesley Yeung, 2015). In Cambodia, there is

no law to control related to alcohol use and buy; also,

no regulation about industry and local market.

However, Cambodia Ministry of Health has draft the

first law related to minimum the age of alcohol

drinking. “The law will limit people who are under

21 years of age from buying alcohol or going to

drink alcohol in bars” (Henderson, 2015). A research

in 2015 reported about the prevalence of alcohol use

disorder and episodic drinking in rural communities

in Cambodia was high. Male , younger age, and

increasing income were significant risk

factors.(Wesley Yeung, 2015)

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An observational study with cross-sectional

design was conducted in August 2017 by interview

after taking informed consent. Ethical approval was

made by Khon Kaen University Ethics Committee in

Human Research (No.HE602181). Section Multi-

stage sampling was used to select the samples in this

study. Phnom Penh municipality was selected and 5



USA)


districts were randomly selected from the total of 12

districts of Phnom Penh municipality. Then 2

communes were randomly selected from each

selected district, so the total of 10 communes were

selected. Also, the ten communes such as Beorng

Salang,Psardepo1,Toul Svay PreyII,

Bengkengkong1, Wat Phnom, Chaktomuk, Phnom

Penh Tmey, Tektla, Prek Eng and Prekpra was

selected from district of Khan Toul Kork, Khan

Chamcarmon, Khan Doun Penh, Sen Sok, and Khan

Chbarampov. Then a systematic random sampling

method was applied to choose 323 households from

total 125,527 households. The totals of 323 samples

were randomly selected from each household if there

were more than one member of included criteria in

each household. The study population included the

working age population (age from 18 to 59 years old)

in Phnom Penh city of Cambodia, who are willing to

participate in the study and have no difficulties to

understand the questionnaire and express their ideas.

Study tool

The pre-testing of the questionnaire was conducted

30 participants in any communes and calculated for

reliability of the study using Cronbach alpha

coefficient >= 0.70 and Kuder–Richardson Formula

20 (KR-20)>=0.50 that was considered

appropriately. The questionnaire was adjusted and

corrected accordingly to ensure the validity and

reliability of the tool. Finally, the questionnaires

were adjusted and corrected accordingly, which were

ensured the validity and reliability of the tool. During

data collection real time, researcher served as mentor

or supervisor for data management to review all the

forms 323 of participant for completed each day, the

check for the completion and other errors. BMI was

measured by weight and height; also, hazardous

drinking of alcohol use disorder was measured by

AUDIT score ≥8 from WHO. Then knowledge,

marketing, and attitude were measured by rating the

scale and classified to criteria based on Bloom’s cut

off point (60%-80%).

Statistical Analysis Plan

The raw data of 323 responded participants had been

recorded into MS Excel for database management

before an in-depth analysis. After that the statistical

consideration for data analysis was used by STATA

(13.0) software to study and analyze the relationship

between dependent variable and independent

variables for this research, as well as descriptive

statistic by describing the frequency and percentage

as baseline of characteristic. Then the simple logistic

regression was used for analyze the association

between each independent variable and outcome.

Finally, the multiple logistic regressions adjusted

OR, 95% of Confident Interval (95%CI) with P value

< 0.05 was used to determine the factor associations

between sociocultural determinants with alcohol

consumption disorder. Cronbrach Alpha coefficient

>=0.7 and Kuder–Richardson Formula 20 (KR-

20)>=0.50 were used to test reliability.

RESULTS

The participants of this study was male 75.85%, and

the average age was 31.82 ± 10.26 SD years old. The

subject who were underweight was 11% and normal

weight was 41% while those who were overweight

and obesity are nearly 50%. However, those were



USA)


single was comparable with married and divorced

within average income was 392 USD± 410USD per

month, and monthly expenditure was

286USD±282USD. Our present study, the

prevalence of hazardous drinking that was defined by

AUDIT score ≥ 8 was 53.56%. The result indicated

that male had more chance 5.46 times than female to

get HD (Adjusted OR: 5.46, 95%CI: 2.7-11.03)

which statistically was significant p value< 0.001.

For people who were overweight had chance 78%

more than those who were normal and underweight

to get HD (Adjusted OR: 1.78, 95%CI: 1.04-3.05)

and it was significantly p value: 0.03. Subjects who

were employed had more chance 2.83 times to get

HD compared with those who were unemployed

(Adjusted OR: 2.83, 95%CI: 1.42-5.65) with p value:

0.003. Those who were current smoker had more

chance 4.5times to get HD compared with

never/former smoker (Adjusted OR: 4.5, 95%CI:

1.88-10.76) which statistical was significant p value:

0.001. People who had family drinking alcohol were

more likely to get HD 4.28 times compared to those

did not have family drink alcohol (Adjusted OR:

4.28, 95%CI: 2.24-8.16) p value< 0.001 was

significantly. Subjects who had close friend drinking

alcohol were more likely to get HD 4.43 times

compared to those did not have family drink alcohol

(Adjusted OR: 4.43, 95%CI: 1.22-16.13) p value:

0.02 was significantly. People who were currently

take medicine had more chance to get HD 3.56 times

compared with those who never and former take

medicine regularly (Adjusted OR: 3.56, 95%CI:

1.28-9.93) with statically was significant p value:

0.01. The subjects who had chronic health problem

had more chance to get HD 2.57 times compared

with those who were not( Adjusted OR: 2.57,

95%CI: 1.21-5.44) ; p value: 0.01 was

significantly.(Table4)

Table 1: Baseline characteristics of respondents

Characteristics Number Percentage (%)

Overall 323

Sex

Male 245 75.85

Female 78 24.15

Age (years)

18-20 31 9.60

21-30 130 40.25

31-40 106 32.82

41-50 31 9.60

>50 25 7.74

Mean (SD) 31.8 ± 10.2

Median (Min: Max) 30 (18 – 59)

BMI ( Kg/m2)

Underweight ( <18.5) 37 11.46

Normal (18.5-22.99) 134 41.49

Overweight (23-24.99) 65 20.12

Obesity (>=25) 87 26.93

Marital status

Single 167 51.70

Married 142 43.96



USA)


Divorced/widowed/separated 14 4.33

Income (USD/Month)

<200 84 26.01

200-300 126 39.01

>300 113 34.98

Mean (SD) 392 (± 410)

Median (Min: Max) 250 (0-4,500)

Expenditure (USD/Month)

<200 144 44.58

200-300 95 29.41

>300 84 26.01

Mean (SD) 286 (± 282)

Median (Min: Max) 200 (5-2,000)

Educational attainment

Uneducated 11 3.41

Primary school 57 17.65

Secondary school 49 15.17

High school 115 35.60

Bachelor degree or higher 91 28.17

Occupation

Private company officer 87 26.93

Vendor 84 26.01

Student 57 17.65

Government officer 25 7.74

Worker 19 5.88

Unemployed 5 1.55

Other 46 14.24

Family member

<5 133 41.18

>=5 190 58.82

People live with

Relatives/ family 122 37.77

Husband/wife 118 36.53

Alone 39 12.07

Friends 28 8.67

Partner 8 2.48

Other 8 2.48

Religion

Buddhist 315 97.52

Christian 5 1.55

Muslim 3 0.93

Physical activities

=<1/week 192 59.44

>1/week 131 40.56

Smoking

Never Smoking 226 69.97

Former Smoking 45 13.93

Current smoking 52 16.10

Family drink alcohol

No 83 25.70

Yes 240 74.30



USA)


Close friend drink alcohol

No 26 8.05

Yes 297 91.95

Take medicine regularly

Never 261 80.80

Former Take 26 8.05

Current take 36 11.15

Chronic health problem

No 259 80.19

Yes 64 19.81

Table 2: Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test

Characteristics Number Percentage (%)

AUDIT (1 year)

Low risk drinking ( 0-7) 150 46.44

Hazardous drinking (8-15) 112 34.67

Harmful drinking (16-19) 38 11.76

Problem Alcohol dependence (20+) 23 7.12

Mean (SD) 9.19 (6.71)

Median (Min: Max) 8 (0 : 30)

Table 3. Odds ratios for sociocultural determinants factors on alcohol use disorder (Hazardous

drinking) based on simple logistic regression.

Characteristics Number %HD OR 95%CI p-value

Overall 323 53.56

Sex <0.001

Female 78 28.21 1

Male 245 61.63 4.08 2.34 - 7.13

Age (years) 0.02

18-30 161 45.96 1

31-50 137 61.31 1.86 1.17-2.96

>50 25 60.00 1.76 0.74-4.15

BMI(Kg/m2) <0.001

Underweight and normal ( <23) 171 44.44 1

Overweight (>=23) 152 63.82 2.20 1.40-3.44

Marital status

Single 167 52.10 1 0.36

Married 142 53.52 1.05 0.67-1.65

Divorced/widowed/separated 14 71.43 2.29 0.69-7.62

Income (USD/Month) 0.38

<200 84 48.81 1

200-300 126 52.38 1.15 0.66 - 2

>300 113 58.41 1.47 0.83 - 2.59

Expenditure (USD/Month) 0.10

<200 144 47.22 1

200-300 95 56.84 1.47 0.87 - 2.47

>300 84 60.71 1.72 0.99 - 2.98



USA)


Educational attainment 0.87

Under high school 117 52.99 1

Upper high school 206 53.88 1.03 0.65-1.63

Occupation (KHR Thousand/Month) <0.001

Unemployed 62 33.87 1

Employed 261 58.24 2.72 1.52 - 4.86

Family member 0.77

<5 133 52.63 1

>=5 190 54.21 1.06 0.68 - 1.66

People live with 0.81

Alone 39 53.85

Husband/wife 118 54.24 1.01 0.49-2.1

Partner 8 75.00 2.57 0.46-14.35

Friends 28 53.57 0.98 0.37-2.61

Relatives 122 50.82 0.88 0.42-1.82

Other 8 62.50 1.42 0.29-6.82

Physical activities 0.02

=<1/week 192 48.44 1

>1/week 131 61.07 1.66 1.06-2.62

Smoking <0.001

Never/former Smoking 271 47.60 1

Current smoking 52 84.62 6.05 2.74 - 13.34

Family drink alcohol <0.001

No 83 36.14 1

Yes 240 59.58 2.60 1.55-4.36

Close friend drink alcohol <0.001

No 26 19.23 1

Yes 297 56.57 5.46 2-14.89

Take medicine regularly 0.001

Never/Former Take 287 50.52 1

Current take 36 77.78 3.42 1.51-7.77

Chronic health problem <0.001

No 259 47.10 1

Yes 64 79.69 4.40 2.28-8.48

Marketing on Alcohol 0.04

Low level 59 38.98 1

Moderate level 235 56.60 2.04 1.13-3.65

High level 29 58.62 2.21 0.89-5.48

Attitude 0.7

Neutral and Positive 273 53.11 1

Negative 50 56 1.12 0.61-2.06

Knowledge 0.24

Fair/High 305 52.79 1

Poor 18 66.67 1.78 0.65-4.88

Significant p value <0.25



USA)


Table 4. Odds ratios for sociocultural determinants factors on alcohol use disorder (Hazardous

drinking) based on multiple logistic regression.

Characteristics Number %HD Crude

OR

Adjusted

OR

95%CI p-value

Overall 323 53.56

Sex <0.001

Female 78 28.21 1 1

Male 245 61.63 4.08 5.46 2.7-11.03

BMI(Kg/m2) 0.035

Under/ normal weight ( <23) 171 44.44 1 1

Overweight (>=23) 152 63.82 2.20 1.78 1.04-3.05

Occupation 0.003

Unemployed 62 33.87 1 1

Employed 261 58.24 2.72 2.83 1.42-5.65

Smoking 0.001

Never/former Smoking 271 47.60 1 1

Current smoking 52 84.62 6.05 4.50 1.88-

10.76

Family drink alcohol <0.001

No 83 36.14 1 1

Yes 240 59.58 2.60 4.28 2.24-8.16

Close friend drink alcohol 0.024

No 26 19.23 1 1

Yes 297 56.57 5.46 4.43 1.22-

16.13

Take medicine regularly 0.015

Never/Former Take 287 50.52 1 1

Current take 36 77.78 3.42 3.56 1.28-9.93

Chronic health problem 0.014

No 259 47.10 1 1

Yes 64 79.69 4.40 2.57 1.21-5.44

Significant p value <0.05

DISCUSSION

In the study indicated that sex was associated with

AUD that define by AUDIT score ≥ 8 that that male

had more chance 5.46 times than female to get

hazardous drinking (Adjusted OR: 5.46, 95%CI: 2.7-

11.03) which statistically was significant p value<

0.001. It was comparable to the study in Korea that

women had a lower risk of high risk alcohol drinking

(OR: 0.14, 95% CI: 0.13–0.16, P<0.001) than men

(Hong et al., 2017). Also, it was similar to the result

male versus female (45.7% versus 17.0%; OR=0.23,

p<0.001) (Tynan et al., 2017) and another reported of

female had chance 70% less than male to get

hazardous drinking (Adjusted OR: 0.3, 95%CI: 0.17-

0.58) ; p value <0.001.(Jenkins et al., 2015). All in

all, this recent result which showed male had more

chance to get hazardous drinking compared to female,

it could be the reason that in Cambodia female was

less socialization compared to male, and Cambodia’s

culture, female with alcohol drinking was not

appropriate while male with alcohol is just the



USA)


common thing. Regarding to occupation, this study

showed that subject who were employed had more

chance 2.83 times to get hazardous drinking

compared with those who were unemployed

(Adjusted OR: 2.83, 95%CI: 1.42-5.65) with p value :

0.003. By the same token, the study in Kenya 2015,

also, showed that employed people had more chance

to get hazardous drinking nearly 2 times compared to

those were not employed (adjusted OR: 1.8, 95%CI:

1.04 - 2.99, p value : 0.036)(Jenkins et al., 2015). As

a result, this study indicated that employed people

had more chance to get hazardous drinking compared

to unemployed people, it could be the result that those

who were working was more socialization and they

could afford more than unemployed people. Also, this

study was reported that current smoking was 16% and

never and former smoking was over 80%; likewise,

the previous study was 13% and never and former

smoking was more than 80% (Symon, Rankin,

Butcher, Smith, & Cochrane, 2017). In our study

indicated those who were current smoker had more

chance 4.5times to get HD compared with never and

former smoker (Adjusted OR: 4.5, 95%CI: 1.88-

10.76) which statistical was significant p value:

0.001. This agreed with the result of review in

Slovenia was smoker had more chance nearly 2 times

compared to those not smoke to get risky of drinking(

adjusted OR: 1.952, 95%CI: 1.615–2.360) with p

value < 0.001 significantly (Kolsek & Klemenc Ketis,

2015). The study in China was reported that the

current smoker had change to get HD 3.3 times more

than never/former smoker (adjusted OR: 3.3, 95% CI:

2.68–4.07); p value<0.05 was significant (Gao,

Weaver, Fua, & Pan, 2014). Likewise, the previous

study also indicated that smoking was associated with

AUD (adjusted OR: 6, 95%CI: 3.12-11.54) with p

value: 0.001 (Zenebe Y*, 2015). In conclusion,

current smoker had more chance to get HD. Also, in

Cambodia’s society, it could be the reason that the

group of people who smoke, most of them already

had experience of excessive or higher drinking

alcohol. In term of family drink alcohol, our analyze

showed that people who had family drinking alcohol

were more likely to get hazardous drinking 4.28

times compared to those did not have family drink

alcohol (Adjusted OR: 4.28, 95%CI: 2.24-8.16) p

value< 0.001 was significantly. It was similar to the

study in Southern Ireland that had been reported that

parents who were hazardous drinking associated to

the adolescent to get HD by the subjects who had

father HD were more likely to get HD almost 3 times

compared to those not (adjusted O.R = 2.90, 95 % CI:

1.32–6.35) with p value <0.05 (Murphy, O'Sullivan,

O'Donovan, Hope, & Davoren, 2016). It could be the

reason that family was the role model to their

children, and some time their children are the people

who consume the alcohol for their parents. Then it

provided much alcohol drinking in their living style.

Regarding to close friend drink alcohol, in the present

study, the result showed that close friend drink

alcohol was associated with HD. Our analyze showed

that the subject who had close friend drinking alcohol

were more likely to get hazardous drinking 4.43

times compared to those did not have family drink

alcohol (Adjusted OR: 4.43, 95%CI: 1.22-16.13) ;p

value: 0.02 was significantly. It was similar to the

other previous study in Thailand that men who had

peer alcohol drinking occasion were more likely to



USA)


get HD 5 times compared to the men had peer never

drink (adjusted OR: 5.57, 95%CI: 2.02-15.31) and the

men who had peer drink usual were more likely to get

HD 23 times compared to those not (adjusted OR:

23.46, 95%CI: 7.29-75.43), which statistically was

significant <0.01. Also in the same study that showed

women who had peer drink occasion were more

likely to get HD nearly 8 times compared to women

who had peer never drink (adjusted OR: 7.94, 95%CI:

1.89-33.43) and those women who had peer drink

usual were more likely to get HD 63 times compared

with women who had peer never drink

(adjusted OR: 9.24-435.31), which p value<0.01

(Zenebe Y*, 2015). It might be the reason that those

who had alcohol drinking peer group, more or less

they must be influent by many meeting gatherings.

LIMITATION

Since our study was mentioned on working age

population and the location was Phnom Penh City,

the most busy municipality city in Cambodia. Hence,

the participants who were in this age were so busy in

their work, most of them go to work outside their

house during working hours in the week day; also,

some of them were doing business at their home

while we were asking them to join in this study.

However, during working on this study, we were

trying to do in weekend and the time that they are free

from their work in order to minimize the selection

bias as much as possible. Moreover, for the people

who were doing their own business at their home, we

were trying to convince them to join in this study

until they were willing to participate. All the

respondents were selected by systematic random

sampling method in order to make the result more

accurate. Moreover, during our study was raining

season, so we were not able to interview more

participants for the each raining day; however, we are

make sure that our report was the accurate in this

study.

CONCLUSION

Our present study, the prevalence of hazardous

drinking that was defined by AUDIT score ≥ 8 was

over 50% and there are 8 factors that associated with

hazardous drinking of AUD included sex, BMI,

occupation, smoking, family drink alcohol, close

friend, take medicine regularly, and chronic health

problem, which the statistically was significant p

value<0.05.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am thankful to the study participants and local

administration for their kind and support. I am also

thankful to my professor for always support and

advice for achieving this research.

REFERENCE

Alwan, D. A. (2010). Global Strategy to reduce the

harmful use of alcohol. Department of Mental

Health and Substance Abuse20, Avenue

Appia1211 Geneva 27 Switzerland.

Factbook, T. W. (2017). Cambodia. Retrieved 23-

March-2017, 2017, from

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-

world-factbook/geos/cb.html

http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cb.html

http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cb.html



USA)


Gao, J., Weaver, S. R., Fua, H., & Pan, Z. (2014).

Does workplace social capital associate with

hazardous drinking among Chinese rural-

urban migrant workers? PLoS One, 9(12),

e115286. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0115286

Henderson, K. S. a. S. (2015, June 18, 2015). Draft

Law Sets Legal Drinking Age at 21, Highest

in Region, The Cambodia Dialy.

Hong, J. W., Noh, J. H., & Kim, D. J. (2017). The

prevalence of and factors associated with

high-risk alcohol consumption in Korean

adults: The 2009-2011 Korea National Health

and Nutrition Examination Survey. 12(4),

e0175299. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175299

Jenkins, R., Othieno, C., Ongeri, L., Kiima, D.,

Sifuna, P., Kingora, J., . . . Ogutu, B. (2015).

Alcohol consumption and hazardous drinking

in western Kenya--a household survey in a

health and demographic surveillance site.

BMC Psychiatry, 15, 230. doi:

10.1186/s12888-015-0603-x

Jim E. Banta. (2013). Patterns of Alcohol and

Tobacco Use in Cambodia. Asia Pac J Public

Health. doi: 10.1177/1010539512464649.

Kolsek, M., & Klemenc Ketis, Z. (2015). Alcohol

Drinking Among the Students of the

University of Maribor, Slovenia. Zdr Varst,

54(4), 259-266. doi: 10.1515/sjph-2015-0034

Murphy, E., O'Sullivan, I., O'Donovan, D., Hope, A.,

& Davoren, M. P. (2016). The association

between parental attitudes and alcohol

consumption and adolescent alcohol

consumption in Southern Ireland: a cross-

sectional study. BMC Public Health, 16(1),

821. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3504-0

Peltzer, K., Pengpid, S., & Tepirou, C. (2016).

Associations of alcohol use with mental health

and alcohol exposure among school-going

students in Cambodia. Nagoya J Med Sci,

78(4), 415-422. doi:

10.18999/nagjms.78.4.415

Symon, A., Rankin, J., Butcher, G., Smith, L., &

Cochrane, L. (2017). Evaluation of a

retrospective diary for peri-conceptual and

mid-pregnancy drinking in Scotland: a cross-

sectional study. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand,

96(1), 53-60. doi: 10.1111/aogs.13050

Tynan, R. J., Considine, R., Wiggers, J., Lewin, T. J.,

James, C., Inder, K., . . . Kelly, B. J. (2017).

Alcohol consumption in the Australian coal

mining industry. Occupational and

Environmental Medicine, 74(4), 259-267. doi:

10.1136/oemed-2016-103602

Wesley Yeung, W.-Y. L., Kimsong Khoun, Warren

Ong, Sundesh Sambi, Su-Min Lim, Bill

Bieber, Annelies Wilder-Smith. (2015).

Alcohol Use Disorder and Heavy Episodic

Drinking in Rural Communities in Cambodia.

Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 27(8).

WHO. (2009). Global Health Risks: mortality and

burden of disease attributable to selected

major risks. World Health Organization, 20

Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland:

World Health Organization.

WHO. (2014). Global status report on alcohol and

health 2014. Geneva, Switzerland: World

Health Organization.



USA)


WHO. (2017). Global Information System on

Alcohol and Health (GISAH) Retrieved 23

March 2017, from

http://www.who.int/gho/alcohol/en/

Zenebe Y*, N. A., Feyissa GT and Krahl W. (2015).

Alcohol Use Disorders and Its Associated

Factors among Psychiatric Outpatients in

Jimma University Specialized Hospital,

Southwest Ethiopia.

http://www.who.int/gho/alcohol/en/

malika kong - excels in quality education and research

Documents